Search Documents

Jan 1, 2009

By William M. Wallace

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject, "Shake It for Results," may or may not suggest just what is to be shaken, or just what results are to be obtained. I can assure you that if you are thinking about anything outside the realm of pure mining application you have come to the wrong meeting, and if this be the case, you have come to hear a subject discussed that I am not prepared to undertake-at the moment, at least. At the very beginning of time, results were definitely obtained by shaking. If you will recall, Eve shook a certain tree of forbidden fruit-need I recount to you the results that were, and are still, being credited to that bit of engineering? To get closer to the subject at hand, it is the intent of this paper to touch generally on the shaking, principally the vibratory shaking, of materials on a piece, or pieces, of perforated metal or screen cloth. Through the evolution of such a motion we find that great strides have been made toward a highly efficient "operation which is an essential factor in the mining world of today. The object of the shaking motion is to more efficiently separate one size material from another, according to the openings in the screening medium over which it is passed. Sizing is an important operation in every ore dressing, coal prepara¬tion or other mineral-preparing plant for reducing the product to a form more concentrated or more convenient for utilization than that in which it was mined. In coal preparation, market requirements, convenience, custom, and efficiency in combustion necessitate grading mined coal by sizes. All ore-dressing or coal preparation plants therefore must have what is called screening, sizing, or grading apparatus.

Jan 1, 1941

By T. C. Harvey

Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. J. M. Jennings, chairman of the General Committee on arrangements during the convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute here, I have endeavored to prepare a brief description of the Columbia Steel Corporation's tipple at Columbia, Utah, and its operations, but [ ] from the fact that you have already listened to, and have been interested I'm sure, in the description given by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Murphy, on tipple construction and operations, I am taking the liberty, with your permission, to embody in my paper a description of our haulage and ventilation systems at Columbia, which I hope will be, in a measure, also interesting to you. As many of you know, we are mining on a Multiple Panel System, which while comparatively new in Carbon County, is being used successfully in various mining districts of the United States. Mine The Columbia mine is situated about four miles south of Sunnyside, Utah, at an elevation of 6,760 feet at the portal or main entrance of mine. [ ] From this portal, the main air intake or solid rock tunnel, about 1,600 feet long, runs into the mountain in an easterly direction to an intersection of the coal vein on a grade of 0.5 of one per cent in favor of the loads. There this main entry divides and forms two main entries. These are run in parallel with 100-foot chain pillars between them and protected with 150-foot barrier pillars on each side, and run into the coal in a southerly direction on a 0.5 of one per cent grade in favor of the loads for a dis-

Jan 1, 1925

JUNE 11-MORNING SESSION The meeting was called to order Wednesday morning, June 11, 1913,,at 10 o'clock, by the President, E. H. Weitzel. Addresses of welcome were given to the convention by Governor Spry, Mayor Park, and Rev. P. A: Simpkins; 'the several addresses being interspersed by music. The session adjourned at 11 :50 a. m., in order to attend the organ recital at the Tabeknacle at:'12 o'clock. JUNE 11-AFTERNOON SESSION The meeting. Gas called -to order at 2 o'clock, with President E. H. Weitzel in- the .chair. The minutes of, the organization meeting and that of the Executive Board, the 1atier:of which was held April 15, 1913, in Denver, were read and both' approved. A letter from A. 3. Reef, of Denver, containing proposed amendments to the Constitution and By.-Laws, was read, and, upon motion,, was referred to the Executive Board, with .instructions to report upon the matter at the next, regular meeting. The proposed amendments follow: Article I1 (regarding who may become members and how) to be amended to read as follows: "Membership in this Institute shall be of three classes-corporate, individual, and honorary. Any company, firm, or individual operator actually engaged in the mining of coal within the territory of this Institute may become a corporate member on application, and by consent of a majority of the members present at any stated meeting. Any person, who is directly engaged or interested: in some branch of coal-mining may become an individual member upon application, and by consent of a majority of the members present at any stated meeting. Honorary members may be elected at the discretion of the Institute."

Jan 1, 1913

By Bill Gray

Jan 1, 2008

[Adams, Leonard E .................... 8 19 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Adams, V. H ............................. 422 E. San Miguel, Colorado Springs, Colo: Allen, Earl W ........................... 2636 S. Gilpin St., Denver 10, Colo. Allen, Thomas ......................... State Coal Mine Inspector, State Office Bldg., Denver, Colo. Ambler, J. B .............................. P. 0. Box 591, Denver, Colo. Andrew, William . Boulder Valley Coal Co., Louisville, Colo. Apperson, A. B. .................... Brown Hotel, Denver, Colo. Arnold, G. O. ........................ Dawson, New Mexico Audin, Abel .......................... Somerset, Colo. Audin, Clement, Jr ................... Paonia, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1947

of our good friends and fellow -members: J. R. Gemmill J. J. Walsh J. F. Gieble M. O. Danford John E. Havens J. E. Edgeworth R. S. Rubincam Phil Lloyd E. J. Raddatz who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1934

The 1939 meeting will be held in Salt Lake City, the exact date to be announced later. If you have any suggestions for the place or program, send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1938

By Scott Jones

New Mexico Coal Operations ?San Juan, La Plata, And Navajo Mines ?Three Sites 100% Owned By BHP Billiton ?San Juan And La Plata Mines Owned/Operated By San Juan Coal Co. Supplies Coal To San Juan Generating Station ?Navajo Mine Located On Navajo Nation Lands Supplies Coal To Four Corners Power Station

Jan 1, 2008

By D. Harrington

Discussion was prepared by A. L. Jones and Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, read by Mr. Jones; by C. B. Officer, of the Sullivan Machinery Company, read by Mr. J. H. Emrick; by Mr. D. C. McKeehan, Chief Electrician of the Union Pacific Coal Company; and by Mr. L. C. Ilsley, of the United States Bureau of Mines, read by Mr. K. P. Marshall. Their prepared answers are inserted in the body of Mr. Harrington's paper, as answers to his questions. Introductory Remarks PRESIDENT MARKS: We have made special assignments for the discussion of this paper, and I believe these discussions are to be answered in sections, and as the different sections are read applying to this paper, we will just have a brief discussion on that particular point and proceed to the next and try and expedite this discussion as much as possible, be- cause I realize a good many of you have something to say. The first discussion is by Mr. Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, Salt Lake City. MR. F. A. RANK (General Electric Company, Salt Lake City, Utah) : Mr. Chairman, while my name has been put on the program as being the one to discuss this paper, I believe Mr. Jones of our company has prepared a discussion on it, and therefore will let him talk in my place. MR. A. L. JONES: I think that it is passing the buck. However, Mr. Rank sent me a copy of the paper, and I read it over with a good deal of interest. There is one thing I want to say: Mr. Shubart, in his breezy letters, stated this paper was to be written by Mr. Harrington, assisted by a number of manufacturing and operating companies, among them the General Electric Company. We did not function. The paper was completed, and we were not consulted, and I believe that is true of the others. After reading the paper over, I dictated a few notes which I want to read, to give you the view-point that we have on the subject We do not want to minimize electrical dangers, or in any way slow down high-grade construction maintenance, but there is such a thing as overstating the case. A. L. Jones, Engineer, General Electric Co., Denver, Colo. Mr. Harrington's paper in some ways pleases me very much, but in others gives me quite a different sensation. It is so full of condemnation of most existing practices and conditions that it reminds me somewhat of the nerve-racked mother who sent an older brother to see what Willie was doing and to tell him to "stop it." His recital of electrical dangers is harrowing and if I felt it were a true picture I should feel that any of us having anything to do with the recommending or selling of electrical equipment for mines would be party to a crime. Fortunately all mines are not gaseous nor is all dust explosive or we

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1961

Oren. F. Bridwell: The President declares there is a quorum. Since the minutes of last year's meeting arc published in the Proceedings, unless there is objection, we will dispense with the reading of the minutes. There being no objection the minutes will he dispensed with. Is there a report from the Treasurer? Raymond Venous, Chairman, Auditing Committee: I'd like to submit the report for the Secretary-Treasurer for the previous year. Following is the financial report of the Treasurer from May 21, 1964 to May 24, 1965. (Report submitted) May we say, "Cussie," you keep a very, very nice set of hooks. Thank you. Oren F. Bridwell: You have heard the report of the condition of our treasury. We are solvent, at any rate. You have also heard the report of the Auditing Committee. If we might have a motion that the report of the auditing committee he accepted. Moved, seconded and carried. We'll have a report of the Resolutions Committee. Max A. Robe, Chairman, Resolutions Committee: Ladies and gentlemen, we have four resolutions, which we trust are going to he in the best interests of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the coal industry in general.

Jan 1, 1965

The final session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by retiring President, A. Z. Dimitroff. The report of the Auditing Committee was given by E. C. Horne, Acting Chairman of that committee. Motion was made by Dock Schloss that the report he accepted; seconded and carried. Oren Bridwell, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, gave the following report: Resolved: That the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute in convention assembled, hereby ratify and confirm all official actions of the officers, the Executive Committee and other committees of the Institute between June 29, 1960, and the present time.

Jan 1, 1961

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 2009

By Richard L. Lawson

The coal producers of the Rocky Mountain states have led in one of America's true industry revolutions - the leaps in productivity and competitiveness that deliver coal-fired electric power to the U.S. economy at prices that are the competitive envy of the world. You are a primary reason the average price of industrial power in the U.S. - the power that creates and upholds jobs - is: ? 10 percent below the French average, where nuclear power is dominant; ? 37 percent below the average for industrialized Europe; ? 49 percent below the German average, where subsidized coal and nuclear rule; ? And 73 percent below the Japanese average where nuclear and liquified natural gas dominate. There are interests ambitious to change all of that; and they will be a subject of my remarks, some by name, rank, and affiliation. Coal-fired power plants in the Rocky Mountain states deliver some of America's lowest cost electricity; and America's coal-fired plants deliver some of the world's lowest cost electricity. Represented here in one room are producers from states that deliver more than 40 percent of America's coal and five of her top 10 producing states. You are cornerstones of America's economic strength and future growth. The theme for this meeting is "The Many Partnerships of Coal;" and, in this keynote, I'd like to offer a variation on the theme. I'd like to discuss a determined partnership that is dedicated to overturning everything you have accomplished, plus the structure of our society - very dedicated, very patient, very determined. This partnership masks itself as being in the public interest but behind the mask a political alliance of three distinct private interests can be seen: ? One is ambitious for economic reward as a right and without the trouble of effort; ? One is ambitious for economic advantage in trade without the trouble of competing; ? And one is ambitious for the power to govern people without the trouble of winning consent in elections - to change the way other people choose to live in accord with their own passionately held beliefs. The international agreement on climate is being used as an artifice to advance these interests, and the interests are making the United Nations a mechanism for achieving those objectives - for turning the screw, so to speak. The President that Americans elect this year soon will come under intense pressure from these partners to: ? First, quickly adopt policies that will raise U.S. energy prices and restrict use under the climate agreement; ? And in 1998 - if they follow their own published plans - to begin the subordination of the independence of the United States to a collective sovereignty in economic, political, legal and other matters. The Worldwatch Institute inaugurated this pressure last year with a policy monograph entitled Partnership for the Planet: An Environmental Agenda for the United Nations. This is but one indicator of the situation I ask you to consider. The pressure will increase after the election. Worldwatch is one of those intellect-oriented "public interest" groups whose work often leads to policy proposals and debate. Worldwatch gets money from the U.N. Population Fund and the MacArthur Foundation among others. And so my remarks require wading waist deep into one of the more sporting current propositions of American public policy - discussion of ambitions for and within the United Nations to achieve that which the ambitious call global governance. Since last year's media focus on the militia movement - and talk of black helicopters - any

Jan 1, 1996

In this very interesting paper, Mr. Harrington mentions a considerable variety of materials suitable for use in the rock dusting of coal mines; this suggests that you may possibly be interested in same purely theoretical figures tending to show the superiority of gypsum for this purpose. Some of the gentlemen present have found difficulty in applying a thick, adherent coating of dry gypsum to the ribs and roofs of their workings, for which reason pulverized gypsum will perhaps be chiefly useful for the loading of barrier troughs. In view of the function that rock dust is expected to perform in case of a coal-dust explosion, it seems obvious that the most efficacious dust will be the one that can absorb the most heat and absorb it most rapidly. The customary rock dusting materials differ considerably in this respect, depending principally upon the facility with which they can be decomposed at the temperatures encountered in a coal-dust explosion. Such stable materials as silica, anhydrite and flue-dust vary but slightly in their heat-absorbing capacities, the specific heats of minerals in general ranging between 0.19 and 0.22; on the other hand, gypsum and limestone, as well as certain argillaceous materials such as shale, adobe, etc., are capable of absorbing additional heat through their chemical dissociation, although, as will appear later, it is questionable whether the amount of heat thus absorbed, in the case of limestone, shale, and adobe, is large enough to have any practical value. As to the temperature developed by a coal-dust explosion, the Bureau of Mines reports one test in which gold foil was melted, and others in which silver foil was melted, but not gold; hence 1832° F. (1000° C.) seems a reasonable figure to assume for purposes of calculation. Normal temperature is taken as 68° F. (20°C.). The other fundamental data required for the computations as cited by various authorities, are as follows: [Specific heats Gypsum : 0.259 Calcium sulphate, anhydrous. . .190 Limestone 0.216 Lime 0.239 Clay, shale, silica, etc. usually not exceeding 0.220 Carbon dioxide .:0.217 Steam (at atmospheric pressure)0.500 Heats of formation CaSO4+2H2O-4.606 Kg-cal. per gram molecule, or 48.2 B:t:u.' per pound of gypsum.- CaO +C0,42.5 Kg.-cal. per gram molecule, or 765 B.t.u. per pound of limestone. Latent heat of vaporization of water. from and at 100°C.. 535.9 Kg.-cal. per kilogram (964.6 B.t.u. per pound).] Computations will be based on the Fahrenheit scale and British thermal units, as probably more familiar in the coal industry. First as to the inert materials: their heat-absorbing capacity per pound is simply the product of their specific heat, say 0.22, multiplied by the assumed rise in temperature, 1764° F., or 388 B.t.u. per pound. Gypsum, CaS0, 2H.0, though apparently perfectly dry, contains 21% of combined water. When gradually heated it will have liberated three-quarters of its water freely by the time it reaches 250° F.; the remaining one-quarter is retained to a somewhat higher temperature, but the last of it will have been expelled at 482° F. For calculating the total heat absorbed in raising gypsum (or its products) to the temperature of a coal-dust explosion, no serious error will be intro-

Jan 1, 1925

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

By David R. Hammond

How Could Natural Gas be Coal?s Best Friend ? - Natural gas is the environment friendly ?fuel of choice?; coal is the opposite - 90 % of new / replacement generating capacity in U.S. projected to be gas-fired - Natural gas-fired generation market share predicted to increase to 25-30% at expense of coal - Natural gas consumption forecast to growth from 22 TCF to 35 TCF per year by 2025 - Gas has good friends in the Environmental Industries and the current Administration

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 1984