Search Documents

Profiled here are the eight RMCMI 2001 Scholarship Award winners. Seven of the eight attended the 97th Regular Meeting and Convention at the Steamboat Springs Sheraton Resort in Steamboat Springs, Colorado in lace June. Each spoke during the Scholarship Awards Monday luncheon and shared their goals with attendees. Thanks to the Patrons of the Institute each student received a 52,000 tuition credit, a plaque signifying the honor and the opportunity to thank the membership. The winners were guests of the Institute Sunday through Tuesday noon and had an outstanding opportunity to meet many in the coal industry that could be potential employers. The state vice presidents host the winners anti 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. Criterion for the awards is chat the recipient be (1) a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit in the junior year. (2) a U. S. citizen and a legal resident of the member state. (3) in good academic standing while pursuing a degree in a mining related field. They must 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 5100 or more to the Patrons of the Institute, each new Patron receives a plaque and then a year bar for each additional year contributions are made. Contributions may he directed to RMCMI Patrons, 8057 S. Yukon Way, Littleton, CO 80128-5510. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Steven W. Shipley University of Arizona The son of Bonnie Fawcett and David Shipley, Steven graduated from Catalina Foothills High School, Tucson, Arizona where lie attained a 3.5 GPA. In his third year at the University of Arizona lie is pursuing, a degree in mining engineering. He is a member of SME, Northwest Mining Association, and a volunteer at San Xavier Mining Laboratory -Miner. He participated in Football, Track, Wrestling and the DECA club while in high school He is the recipient in both the WAAIME and the Phelps Dodge scholarships. Steven volunteers during the academic year at the U of A San Xavier Mining Laboratory. He worked the summer of 2001 at the Black Butte Coal Company in Point of Rock, Wyoming. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Brian Gerdes Colorado School of Mines Graduating as the Valedictorian of Horizon High School with a 4.0 GPA, Brian is well prepared for the rigors of academia. In high school he was recognized in rite President's Education Awards Program and as a Radio Shack Tandy Scholar. lie belongs to SME, is a member of Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and volunteers at a local elementary school tutoring children. He enjoys intramural Sports. His father is Bruce Gerdes of Broomfield, Colorado Brian is holding a 3.75 GPA while studying for a mining engineering degree. He would like to go into reclamation scaring that his dream would be to reclaim an old mine and restore it to a function, al role in society again.

Jan 1, 2001

BHP-Utah International, Inc. Coal Magazine Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Southern Pacific Lines Tamarron Resort Utah Power & Light Company Utility Fuel

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1926

By Paul Schmechel

This time of year, our lawn is host to goodly numbers of birds - robins, English sparrows, finches of various flavors and some whose names I don't know. We lure them with a feeder in our backyard and I'm sure Patti and I spend several minutes a day watching them through a picture window that overlooks their coming and going. And, while the picture window supplies us with a constantly changing view, it does not treat our winged friends nearly so kindly. You see, at certain times of the day, reflections on our window feed back to our birds a mirror image of the backyard. Lifting off from the bird feeder, they see before them what is behind them. And, not infrequently they fly straight into the window. They stop abruptly, of course. It has to be quite a shock to discover that what is behind you is not the same as what is in front. At this point, I might be tempted to say something about bird brains - except for the fact that we humans also are prone to deceptive images thrown up by the past. Today, I think we hear a great many voices painting past images as they look to the future. We hear that the price of oil soon will rise to its former elevated position; the price of copper will bounce back; a hungry world soon will escalate the demand for food and our agricultural industry will be back in the black. In fact, we can hear hope from many voices telling us that our major resource-rich, basic industries are poised to fly up. I can hope that the voices are right, but I keep thinking that those expressions come from people seeing false images. Most certainly, it is more comfortable to see the past, rather than acknowledge that the world economy is being restructured and that the restructuring is affecting the Rocky Mountain states profoundly and negatively. The worst mistake we could make may be to place too much credence in the images from our past. We can be lulled into a dangerous complacency. What we need is a tighter belt and the will to do some serious bootstrapping. Before proceeding, I would make two points: First, it is not my intent to be a prophet of doom. But I do think we need some healthy doses of realism, if we are to avoid the shock of flying into a false future. Second, by now you have detected that I have choosen to diversify the assignment you handed me on utility diversification. As I proceed, you soon will see that the roots of diversification for many utilities lie in the subject that we ponder now. We could begin in many places, but let's start with energy. It is pervasive in our businesses and industries. We all use it. And, despite conventional economic wisdom, we are using less of it. The price is down, but we have not reverted to our profligate ways. That is true whether you look at the industrial customer or the residential consumer. As a nation and as a people, we have learned to do more work with less energy. A few statistics illustrated the point. If we use 1973 as the base year, energy use in the United States has declined almost I percent. If we examine the year of peak energy use, 1979, the decline approaches 7 percent. Let's look at it another way. In 1973, for every dollar of gross national product, the United States consumed 27,100 Btu of energy. Last year, 1985, the comparable figure was 20,700 Btu - a decline of 24 percent. So, not only are we using less energy, but we are using it more efficiently. Even though the price of energy has declined, we are unlikely to use substand with natural gas and petroleum consumption. Use of natural gas has dropped almost 21 percent since 1973. Petroleum consumption has declined 1 I percent since 1973 and almost 19 percent since 1978, when the U.S. used a record quantity of petroleum. We also know there's been no appreciable change in amounts of oil and gas used since 1981. We weathered both a sharp recession and a healthy recovery without altering the amount of those fuels used. That the use of oil and gas dropped sharply, while the total use of energy merely slumped a bit is easy to explain. The use of coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity from 1973 through 1985 increased almost 48 percent. Some people will tell you that the large decrease in the price of oil and gas will result in increased demand that will displace coal, nuclear and hydropower. In turn, demand will force the price of oil and gas upward. I doubt it. From the poking around I've done on the subject, I suspect there may be some short-term displacements, but they will be, for the most part, cancelled out by declining use among existing customers. For instance, we all know what has happened in the automotive sector. In 1973, the average U.S. automobile made 13.1 miles to the U.S. gallon of gasoline. In 1984, the most recent available statistic, the average auto made 16.94 miles to the gallon. That's a 19 percent improvement. Because annual miles driven per automobile are essentially unchanged over the period and the number of cars on the road is not increasing, we are witnessing a drop in this segment of the petroleum market. That trend will continue. Now, let's look at energy consumption patterns still another way. Between 1973 and 1985, consumption in the residential and commercial sectors of our economy increased total energy use by 11.2

Jan 1, 1986

At the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, G. S. Rice, Chief Mining Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, announced the definition of a gassy mine. This definition has been awaited with much interest, especially by the Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. It applies to the whole area of all mines, any part of which is on the public domain of the United States. Consequently it will be of wide application in the western part of this country. The safety committee of the R. M. C. M. I. has been hopeful that the Institute would adopt this definition without exception as the codes of rules to be recommended at all mines in the Rocky Mountain area. The statement follows: "The U. S. Bureau of Mines believes that all coal mines are potentially gassy; but for purposes of administration in respect to prevention of explosions and fires, the Bureau recommends the following classification: "Class 1 coal mine-A practically non-gassy mine in which flammable gas in excess of 0.05 per cent cannot be found by systematic search. "Class 2. coal mine-A slightly gassy mine in which (a) flammable gas has been found, ? but in quantity less than two per cent in still air in any active or unsealed-abandoned workings; or (b) flammable gas can be found, but in quantity less than four per cent, in some place from which the ventilating current has been shut off for a period of one hour; or (c) flammable gas can be found,* but in quantity less than one-fourth per cent in a split** of the ventilating current; or (d) flamamble gas is found in quantity greater than' specified rate*** of not more than 25 cu. ft. per minute. "Class 3 coal mine- A gassy mine in which flammable gas is found in quantity greater than specified for a Class 22 coal mine. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING DECISION NO. 3 "(A) Flammable gas found in coal mines is, with rare exceptions, methane. In coal-mining fields where natural gas is found in lower geologic horizons by deep wells which pass through or nearby the coal mines, there have been rare instances of la leakage from the well. Natural gas is chiefly methane; that constituent almost always forms more than 85 per cent of the whole, but it usually contains ethane, propane and traces of butane also. Therefore if the latter gases are found in mine air it is an indication of leakage. The lower limit of explosibility of methane-air mixture when there is turbulence of five per cent and of natural-gas-air mixtures with about ten per cent ethane and associated hydro-carbon gases is 4.6 per cent. The limit therefore varies with the character of the mixture. " (B) To determine the proper classification of a coal mine, it is advisable that systematic testing and sampling be done at least three times in a period of not less than 72 hours. All tests and samples of the mine air, except one, must show an inflammable-gas content less than the maximum limit of the class to which the mine is assigned. In other words, a tolerance of one test or analysis may be permitted to provide for a mistake or a very exceptional occurrence. "(C) When a new mine is being opened in a coal field where existing mines are generally gassy, it is common sense to assume that similar conditions will be found in the new mine, and its development and equipment should be based upon the expectation that it will be assigned to Class 3."

Jan 1, 1926

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: We have with us a gentleman from Utah, who is familiarly known -as the "Mudite King," Mr. Reid, of the Lion Coal Company. Here is a letter I would like to read, and probably Mr. Reid will give us an idea of his Mudite machine, or the results he is obtaining. This question was brought up in Rock Springs, Wyoming, but Mr. Reid was not there personally during the discussion, but Mr. Burnell, who is general superintendent of the Lion Coal Com¬pany, as much as he possibly could, described the system and its effects. I believe Mr. Reid will probably be able to give a somewhat clearer statement this afternoon. This letter is from the Coal Mining Inspector of the State of Utah, John Crawford. "February 10, 1925. "The Industrial Commission of Utah, Building. "Statement of John Crawford, Coal Mine Inspector, in regard to Muditing in Coal Mines: "That Muditing used in connection with our present sprinkling system in coal mines is the missing link to the system we have had heretofore, because the water applied by the former system began to dry out, in heavy air currents, the moment it was put on. Consequently the dust that had been humidified by sprinkling, came back to its natural condition, and if anything, the combustible parts of it, in my opinion, were more intensified than previous to being wetted down. "The advantages that Muditing has over the old system of sprinkling are: "1st. The dust that is on the roof, timbers and sides of the entry is washed completely off and rolled up in the Mudite solution which entirely destroys the wings, crudely speaking, of the fine coal dust. "2nd. Sprinkling with the Mudite system, the water and mud is of greater extent than could be applied with a hand hose by a sprinkler. This sprinkling can be done while the mine is in operation, just the same as if water alone was being used. "3rd. The Mudite solution, when dried out, leaves a coating which serves as an armour to the coal, so that in the event of a local explosion, the inflammable matter on the coal is non-combustible; whereas, if that same coal had been sprinkled with water only, and made free of dust, the heat would have the same effect on the coal as it has on a stove when coal is thrown into it-instantaneous combustion. "Therefore, it is my opinion that the Mudite system is the missing link to the perfecting of our sprinkling system here in Utah. "(Signed) JOHN CRAWFORD." Mr. Reid has with him a few sam¬ples of his Mudite, after it has become solidified, taken from the floor, as I understand it. It is interesting. We have a few minutes to spare to good advantage, were we to ask Mr. Reid to give us an idea of his machine, as briefly as he possibly can, and also what he thinks the effect of the Mudite is compared to dry rock dust. Mr. Reid. (Applause.) MR. W. J. REID (Lion Coal Company) : I came down here with no intention of making any talk on Mudite. However, there being so many people that have seen Mudite at Wattis

Jan 1, 1925

Lloyd W. Ingles, Superintendent, Allen mine, Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation. Stonewall, Colorado, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He introduced George C. Trevorrow, Safety Director, Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who spoke on "Recent Developments for Improving Safety in Underground Coal Mines." (Refer to the index for the printed text of this paper.) Following Mr. Trevorrow's paper, James Westfield, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., spoke briefly to the group or some of the new methods of controlling fire mentioned in Mr. Trevorrow's paper. Mr. Westfield stated that the Foam plug had been used in the Bureau's experimental mine, and was also used in New Mexico, but was not successful in putting out the lire. In a recent fire in Southwest Virginia where 18 men were lost, the foam plug was used after the fire had been burning for about 6 or 7 days. It did have a good effect, but the section had to be finally sealed off. In a fire in Pennsylvania about 2 weeks ago, the foam plug was put into action after about 9 hours. Although the section was finally sealed, managers of the mine credited the foam plug in saving the mine. Mr. Westfield stated that equipment must be at hand when fighting a fire; that time wasted in securing proper equipment may make the difference. Mr. Westfield also stated that as late as 2 months ago, it seemed that a methane monitoring device was as far as 4 or 5 years away. Now it is expected that it may be put in production within the year. Experimental models are in use in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Mr. Westfield concluded by complimenting Mr. Trevorrow on his excellent paper.

Jan 1, 1960

By Robert M. von Storch

Chairman Doc, distinguished guests, and fellow members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It's a genuine pleasure to meet with you again at the 54th regular meeting. I might add that it is always pleasant to be at the top of the batting order. The field is wide open since there is no danger of repeating something already said. At the same time, I am aware that the lead-off speaker has a responsibility to avoid stepping on the toes of subsequent speakers. I promise to confine my remarks to areas other than those to be covered by the well qualified speakers that follow. During our meetings at this convention, many fine papers will be presented. Our thanks are due Bob Williams and his hard working program committee for the superior selling that brought so many eminent speakers to our meeting. And, of course, our special thanks go to Doc Schloss, general chairman of this meeting. Doc and his able colleague, Stan Shubart, have been the spark plugs that fired up all of the arrangements we are enjoying here in Glenwood Springs. I'm sure all of us are appreciative of the many hours Doc has devoted to seeing that our meetings will be pleasant and profitable. When we mention arrangements, we always think of that master arranger, Fred Whiteside, who, as a charter member and secretary-treasurer of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, has had more to do with more matters around these parts than just about anyone I can think of.

Jan 1, 1958

By G. A. Murphy

This tipple differs from the ordinary tipple only in that it embodies numerous refinements for grading and otherwise preparing the coal. Coal from the mines is delivered to the tipple over a surface tram. There are two tracks for loads, which will hold about forty cars, and one track for empties which will hold about the same number. The loads are fed to the dump by gravity from both tracks and are controlled by two squeeze blocks. These blocks are of the type originally designed by Mr. W. J. Elwood, but unlike the original blocks which were of wood and operated by hand levers, are built of steel and operated by com¬pressed air at 100 pounds pressure. They are capable of holding securely twenty-four three-ton cars on a grade of 2.5%. The dump is of the complete revolving type and has a capacity of five cars per minute. After being dumped the empty cars go to the usual kick-back and onto the empty track by gravity. The hopper under the dump has a capacity of approximately fifteen tons, and the coal from this hopper is fed to the shakers by a reciprocating feeder. The screens are of the usual shaker type. They are eight feet wide, seventy-two feet long in two sections, balanced, pitch 12° 30", travel six inches and the eccentric shaft makes 100 revolutions per minute. The upper section of the screen is shorter but heavier than the lower section, and contains the slack and nut screens, consisting of plates with 1 5/8" and 3" round perforations respectively. The lower section contains plates with 4 ½ ", 6" and 8" round perforations respectively, from top to bottom in the order named. The shaker is so arranged that nearly all changes for making the different sizes of coal are made by merely shifting levers. The most complicated change has been made in two and a half minutes; most of the other changes can be made in less than one minute and some of then without stopping the shaker. One of the refinements is what we call the degradation screens. Just before the coal leaves the shaker it goes over a screen with 1 3/8" round perforations, which takes out the fine coal made while the coal is going over the other perforations. This fine coal goes into hoppers and onto the degradation conveyor and to the slack chute. The different sizes of coal, excepting the slack, are delivered by the shaker onto three picking tables. These tables are horizontal for twenty-four feet and then hinged to form the loading booms, so that each picking table forms a unit of continuous conveyor. Centrally located under the picking tables and under the floor, is the refuse conveyor which runs at right angles to the tables. The impurities picked from the coal are dropped into openings in the floor and onto this conveyor, from which they are discharged into a bin of 100 tons capacity. From this bin the refuse is loaded into railroad cars through a gate. The slack may be loaded directly into railroad cars through a chute from the hopper under the shaker, or it may be conveyed to the rescreener. Gates are provided by which all or any part of the slack may be loaded either directly into railroad cars or conveyed to the rescreener. The rescreener is a shaker four feet wide with sixteen feet of plate perforated with 3/4" round holes. The framework is wood, the pitch is 5° and it is driven by eccentrics having a 5 3/4" throw running 143 R.P.M. It is hung on 1"x10" ash boards, rigidly fixed at the support and on the shaker, so that the spring of the boards allows for its movement. The eccentric rods are also of ash, rigidly fixed and spring to allow the movement of the eccentrics. The dust going through this shaker drops into a bin of 80 tons capacity and is loaded into railroad cars

Jan 1, 1925

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

I have sketches of the radiators, and on this sketch up in here (indicating) we show the line from the fan-exhaust steam from the fan, and the trip spray at the mouth of the mine, which is usually near the tipple, the set of radiators on each side of the entry, exhaust steam exhausting in by the radiators, the small atomizers which I mentioned, and the man sprinkling at the hose. There are times, when at different times we have a man sprinkling during the day time, when he is out of the way, and during the night, sprinkling on the motor roads. I will leave that print up here and let you look at it and if you have any questions you wish answered, Mr. McAllister and myself will be glad to answer them. (Applause.) PRESIDENT PRYDE: . I am going to ask Mr. Hair to leave the sketch on the wall. From the back part of the hall, it is hard to see what is there. The figures are very important. I think one member of this association will be glad to know the cost of water, Friend Littlejohn. MR. LITTLEJOHN: I don't know as I want to ask any questions. The only thing I' would say about the cost there, it is very close to that cost that we tabulated for the Utah Fuel Company at the Utah mines here some time ago. We have not tabulated lately. It may be a little over that at the present time if you take the. labor costs and the material. costs. As I remember, some time ago we did get up some figures and it was, as near as I can remember, exactly two cents per, ton for the labor and material. We haven't got the radiators, etc., that the C. F. & I. have in their mines there, probably due to the fact that we have no shortage of water. We have plenty of that there, and our system is absolutely nothing more nor less than pipe lines, hose and nozzles and the man at the end of the nozzle. PRESIDENT PRYDE: I would like to ask Mr. Hair about the cost of the steam. MR. HAIR: That steam we use there in exhausting, of course, is from the fan, and we have a back pressure valve set right here (indicating), from three to four and sometimes five pounds, and the exhaust from the fan was a five or six inch exhaust, and our exhaust into the mine is nothing less than eight inches, and is practically low back pressure you might say, and all those large radiators, that I spoke of, are heated by live steam, and these probably take a little more coal, but as to just what that cost is I couldn't say. As far as the exhaust steam is concerned, you might as well use it in the mine as discharge it outside. MR. HARRINGTON: Mr. Hair, I would like to ask, is this installation on an intake haulage-main haulage course? MR. HAIR: Yes, sir. MR. HARRINGTON: In the winter time, when it is, say between five or ten degrees below zero, how far into that haulage road does the fogging go? MR. HAIR: Well, that goes in half a mile, sometimes in 3,000 feet. MR. HARRINGTON: Wouldn't that interfere pretty seriously with the motor? MR. HAIR: To some extent, but I wouldn't say seriously enough to interefere with the production of coal. We have one mine we are working in two and three-quarters miles. Our mines are all pretty deep, and we don't find it objectionable. I don't believe that it interferes in the production of coal. I don't believe it makes any more difference between a real cold day in winter time than it does in the summer time. MR. HARRINGTON: I was down at Dawson, and in their mines they have an installation very much like Mr. Hair describes, but we went in there one night and stayed all night, getting a certain amount of data, and the fog was intense for-a full half mile; so intense that you could hardly see your hand in front of your face-see your hand that far (indicating) dis-

Jan 1, 1924

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you any maximum length that you make your dust barriers? What I mean by that is, your entries are 10 feet wide, and I believe if I remember right, in your single track entries you had only one dust barrier to cover the full width of the. entry in your double track entries, I believe you had two-I would like to know, have you any maximum length you make these barriers? MR. CHAS. LEGER, ROYAL FUEL CO., UTAH: It is stated that they shouldn't be over 8 feet long to obtain sensitiveness. If they make them over 8 feet they are not as sensitive as they should be. They should be made short for two reasons in order to keep the sagging out and to make them as sensitive as possible. MR. DAN HARRINGTON, U. S. BUREAU OF MINES: I didn't come here to enter into any extended discussion on rock dusting or to discuss in particular the situation at Dawson. At the February meeting at Denver, we made a complete study of this matter. Since that time a report was completed and reported to the Phelps-Dodge Corporation and Mr. Moorhead probably has a copy of it, which can give you more complete information as to what we found. We found that with the adobe dusting that they have done, they had six miles of entry pretty thoroughly dusted and of all the samples we took, at least 95 percent of them showed that not only the floor but the ribs and roof were in such a condition that an explosion could not originate in any part of this entry. In other words, this entry as it was dusted was absolutely protected from ignition and propagation. The adobe they used was of material that was non-combustible. In most instances there was not more than 3 per cent of moisture in it.

Jan 1, 1924

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

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

MR. D. HARRINGTON (U. S. Bureau of Mines) : I happen to be a member of the Safety Committee, and the men on the Committee, I believe are the ones who will find the most fault with the report; but I am absolutely not in accord with the last recommendation. (The use of the "Self-Rescuer.") I do not think it safe. I do not think you are always sure you are going to have a sufficient amount of oxygen; in fact I know there are occasions in mines when there is not enough oxygen to make a man safe in a gas mask or self rescuer. At one mine fire, workers using open oil and carbide lights experienced quick reversal of air which extinguished the lights and one of the workers having carbide light was overcome. It took about 45 minutes hard work with Sylvester method of artificial respiration to restore him to consciousness. Fortunately these men were working close to fresh air but had they been far from fresh air base and relying upon self-rescuers or gas masks they would undoubtedly have perished. I was at a mine fire in Wyoming. A bunch of men were working and the air turned on them, and if they hadn't oxygen breathing mine rescuing apparatus I think there would have been at least a half dozen men killed they would have been killed before you could say, "Jack Robinson." PRESIDENT PRYDE: I would like to ask if the self-rescuers are nut approved by the Bureau of Mines? MR. HARRINGTON: They are not; absolutely not.* Furthermore, the Bureau of Mines' Engineers have opportunities to go around in mines, and in mine cars as much as anybody else in the country, and I have in mind but one who is in the slightest degree in favor of allowing self-rescuers to go in a mine. MR. BEVAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Safety Committee if it would be of any use to the fire boss traveling through the mine? PRESIDENT PRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I think we should finish up the discussion on the self-rescuer before we take up any other discussions.

Jan 1, 1924

By James J. Bryja

The production capabilities of today?s longwall systems have resulted in significant increases in retreat rates. This has in turn resulted in a heightened demand on panel development rates to assure that subsequent panels are completed in time to avoid a longwall production outage. As a means of reducing the pressure on the panel development activity a trend has developed towards the use of wider face lengths. The aim of using a wider face is to reduce the longwall retreat rate without sacrificing productivity and thereby reduce the pressure on increasing panel development rates. However, as the face width increases so too does the number of hydraulically powered roof supports that are required to control the longwall face roof. This increase in the number of units inherently translates into increases in the level of required maintenance relative to the multitude of mechanical and hydraulic components, and an increase in the time required for tear-down and installation time during the moves between panels. An obvious method of mitigating the maintenance and move-time impacts of wider faces is to employ the use of individual roof supports having a wider center-to-center spacing. This practice would serve to minimize the number of roof supports and maximize the time availability for longwall face production. With this target in mind a joint research project with DBT was initiated in 1998 to study the feasibility of using 2 m wide shields to replace the then standard 1.75 m wide shields. After four years of comprehensive work, the technical team from DBT and RAG American Coal completed the design and development of a prototype shield that would later become part of the world?s widest longwall face employing the use of shields having a spacing of +2 meters. The final spacing of the shields actually became 2.058m in order to match the standard pitch of the rack bar shearer haulage elements on the conveyor. In July 2002, the 2 m wide shields were successfully installed in LW-46 panel at RAG Cumberland mine in the U. S. The authors in this paper summarize the design considerations of and operational experiences with the world?s widest longwall face using +2 meter wide roof supports.

Jan 1, 2008

Pictured on these pages are the six RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1985-86 year followed by a brief profile. Five of the winners were present as RMCMI guests at the June convention at Tamarron to receive their recognition plaques at the welcoming session held Monday, July I, 1985. In addition to the plaques, each winner will receive $500.00 to be used toward tuition in the coming academic year. Also, as this is a continuing award, the winners from the 1984-85 season, will also receive an additional $500.00 for tuition use in their senior years provided they have maintained a good academic standing. Criteria for these awards is (1) 'That the award be made in the spring to a sophomore student to be used toward tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U. S. citizen and a resident of the state involved. (3) That the recipient have 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 worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member as well as firms, businesses and corporations. Checks payable to RMCMI Scholarship may be mailed to the RMCMI Office at 777 Nile Street in Golden, CO 80401. Profiles of the 1985 winners follow: [ ]BEVERLY MOON Colorado School of Mines Beverly is a resident of Greeley, Colorado. She maintains a 3.1 grade average at the Colorado School of Mines and was on the Dean's List in 1983. In addition she also appeared on the Academic Roll in 198 1 and 1984. She participates in the Society of Women Engineers, and this summer Beverly is working for North American Coal Corporation's Coteau Properties, outside of Beulah, North Dakota, as an Engineer's Assistant. [ ]DEE BRAY Montana College of Science and Technology Dee comes from a small ranch outside of Hall, Montana and is currently pursuing a degree in Mining Engineering at Montana Tech. This summer he is working for North American Coal where he was selected out of more than a dozen applicants for his position. As a side note, Dee's brother, Dean Bray, is also a Mining Engineer, a Montana Tech Grad, and works for Consol at the Glen Harold Mine in North Dakota.

Jan 1, 1985

PRESIDENT PRYDE: I think that the overcutting machine undoubtedly presents a great many benefits, especially where the roof is frail. I have found a good substitute for the Arcwall, getting a lighter machine by equipping a machine with a turret truck, you get a much lighter weight, and while the cutter is not movable vertically, you cut not on top of the seam, but about the middle of it. MR. SC'HLOSS: I would like to ask Mr. Pryde the advantages of cut- ting with this turret-mounted Shortwall machine. PRESIDENT PRYDE: It is better for development work in narrow places. In development work you have a lot of narrow places. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Chairman, we were compelled at Winter- quarters, one time, to introduce them for reason of sand rolls'. We have in that mine a condition-we have sand rolls from twelve inches to two and a half feet, sometimes higher than that-usually twelve inches to two and a half feet, and we had to get some of the C. E. 7's on the turret there and used them for advance work not only in the entries, but in rooms; not only in that particular district, but in fact all the districts in the mine-we have abandoned the power trucks. You can cut without unloading, and that is one of the principal advantages, and when the sand rolls come in it enables you to cut over the top of the sand roll, but the particular objection, we were working a nine-foot wall, and some of the coal was twelve feet thick, so that the miners have raised a little objection to the drilling.

Jan 1, 1924

Profiled below are the eight RMCMI 1999 Scholarship Award winners. Seven of the eight attended the 95th Regular Meeting and convention at Crested Butte, Colorado in late June. Each spoke during the Scholarship Awards Monday luncheon and shared their goals with attendees. In addition to receiving a $1,500 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 are guests of the Institute Sunday through Tuesday and have an incredible opportunity to meet many in the coal 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 if they remain a full time student and if recommended by the dean of their 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 stare. (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 are made. These may be directed to RMCMI Patrons, 3000 Youngfield Street, #324, Lakewood, CO 80215-6553. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Jennifer Jannusch University of Arizona Jennifer is the daughter of Peggy and Larry Jannusch of Phoenix. She graduated from Shadow Mountain High School in the top 15% of her class. She has been on the Dean's List and won the National Collegiate Engineering Award. Jennifer belongs to the Association of Engineering Geologists, SME, Best Buddies, and enjoys running, painting and languages. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Alan S. Maste¬rs Colorado School of ties Alan is the son of Lee and Ellen Masters of Lakewood, Colorado. He graduated from Lakewood High School and has been on the Dean's List at CSM. He resides with his wife, Karen, and children Morgan, Nicole and Scott. Spending twelve years as a mechanic and semi-truck driver, Alan decided to return to school to pursue an engineering degree. Having maintained a 4.0 G.P.A. at Arapahoe Community College, he was accepted at CSM where he continues to excel. He firmly believes that the future of our country will be enhanced by our ability to utilize our natural resources. Alan enjoys time with his family, fishing, water skiing, bowling and reading Tom Clancy or John Grisham novels.

Jan 1, 1999

Profiled on these pages are the eight RMCMl 1998 Scholarship Award winners. Six of the eight winners were present as guests of the lnstitute at the June convention at Snowmass Village, Colorado. Each received recognition at the Institute Awards Luncheon Sunday. June 28. 1998. Each state vice president served as host for the collegiate winner and his firm provided travel and hotel expenses. In addition to receiving a plaque from the Scholarship Chairman, Jim Mattern, each winner receives $1.000 tuition credit for the coming academic year, as well as transportation, hotel lodging and meals at convention as guests of the Institute. Because this IS a continuing award, the winners from the previous year also receive a $1,000 tuition credit in their senior year if recommended by the dean of the college or university and if they remain full time students. A resident from each of the eight RMCMI member states is selected from among Board approved institutions. Criteria for these awards made annually is that the recipient (1) Is a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit during the junior year. (2) Be both a U.S. citizen and a 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. The scholarship program includes curricula other than in the mining departments, but in engineering disciplines, such as geology, mineral processing and metallurgy. Through annual donations of $100 or more. the Patrons of the Institute fund the scholarship program. A listing of current donors is found elsewhere in this book. Donations to this worthwhile program are payable to RMCMl Patrons and may be mailed to the RMCMl Office, 3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 324, Lakewood, Colorado 80215. Profiles of the 1998 Scholarship Winners follow. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Christopher L. Delp University of Arizona Christopher is the son of Drusilla and John Delp of Tucson. He is pursuing a degree in Mining Engineering as a junior at the University of Arizona. He enjoys outdoor sports including skiing, mountain biking, golf, and hiking. He also enjoys reading, ghost town and old mine exploration, computer, Japanese conversation, and sketching cars and other forms of transportation. Chris hopes to attain a Masters Degree. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Matthew D. Lengerich Colorado School of Mines Matthew, the son of Judy Lengerich, Durango, Colorado and Ronald Lengerich of Redlands, California, is pursuing his degree in Mining Engineering with a 3.93 GPA. He is a member of the National Honor Society and the German National Honor Society. An avid outdoorsman, Matt also finds time to pursue music and theater. He was unable to attend convention this year as he was on a collegiate trip to South Africa. He is Co-President CSM Newman Group and Youth Leader at Christ on the Mountain Catholic Church.

Jan 1, 1998