Search Documents

Jan 1, 1922

By David Griffiths

I am not an orator and have never said a word in public during my thirty years' experience in the coal mines of Colorado; but, being requested to speak by our worthy chairman, and as I am deeply interested in the future welfare of this organization, 1 will make an effort to say a few words in behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal-Mining Institute, which we are about to organize. As 1 understand it, it is the object and intent of this organization not merely to assemble occasionally for the purpose of discussing various problems in coal-mining, and thus to obtain the best possible results in economic operations, but its especial duty will be to devise ways and means whereby accidents in coal mines will be minimized. Figuratively speaking. we are about to plant a tree in the State House of Colorado, and desire its roots and branches to extend over Wyoming on the north, New Mexico on the south. and Utah on the west. So we expect this tree to bear fruit over a vast area. We must remember that the planting of a tree, even in good soil, is useless unless we cultivate, prune, and nurture its development. If we will not do so, the tree will not bear the desired fruit. So, in order to make the Rocky Mountain Institute a success, we must not only start it off in good shape, but we must keep on adding to its strength in various ways, so that it will become a known factor and a recognized power over this broad territory. In other coal-mining states and countries of the world much has been accomplished through similar organizations to reduce loss of life among men engaged in the production of coal, and there is no reason why our institute in the West should not be equally useful and attain the same results. There are many ways by which this organization can be made beneficial to the men engaged, in various capacities, in handling the "dusky diamond." I will endeavor to confine my brief remarks to the necessity of a crusade of an educational nature among three classes of men that are directly and indirectly connected with coal mines. First-We need to educate ouselves. It is amazing how few of our number, holding positions of trust, and having charge of men in and around coal mines, are conversant with our brief mining laws and cognizant of our duties in enforcing them. Going down the line to our company men and miners, I think 1 can safely say that not over 5 per cent of them are in any way familiar with the statutes that have been enacted for their especial benefit and protection. This condition, 1 think, can be, and ought to be, remedied, and. if thoroughly done, the effect in reducing loss of life will soon become apparent. Now, to reach the officers or men in charge I consider an easy matter, which could be accomplished in this manner: Have our general managers or owners of coal properties issue a circular, compelling every superintendent pit boss, fire boss, or other officer having charge of men, to send them a copy of the mining law in their own handwriting every six months. But to come to the masses engaged in coal-mining. to get these men of various nationalities educated in the mining law, will be a difficult task indeed; but I think I have an original scheme that is practical, and which, if put in operation, would work wonders in educating our company men and miners. This plan is as follows: Have every school in every coal-mining district devote one-half hour on Friday afternoon after school hours to the familiarizing of all male pupils between the ages of twelve and sixteen years with the contents of our laws governing coal mines. At the end of each term of school, award small prizes- say, $5, $3, and $2- to those that are best posted, the principal of the school to be the sole adjudicator. Now, someone may say that this is causing extra work to our teachers, with no compensation. In this respect, I will vouch that 95 percent of our teachers will do this work gratis, providing we can show them the benefit of the system. If we go a step farther, and put an incentive before our teachers, probably it would be a good scheme to award a prize-say, $20 or more-for the best set of practical amendments to our mining laws complied by any school and its teachers, judges of the amendment to be members of this Institute and appointed by the President. There is no denying the fact that we need to be educated, and that we should adopt some system that will encourage a knowledge of practical and scientific mining amoung our present forces and the rising generation. Newspaper Men Need Educating Second-Our reporters and press agents need to

Jan 1, 1987

Jan 1, 1935

By J. A. Smith

The topic assigned me by the Chairman of the Institute, "Safety Practices in Franklin and Williamson Counties, Illinois," I fear will necessarily resolve itself into a paper on shale dust, its application and the results obtained. I returned .only last week from a three weeks trip through these counties at which time, through the courtesy extended me by the operators, I had ample opportunity to visit and inspect many of the largest mines in the field, some of which are among the largest in the United States. With the exception of shale dust and ventilation, I see but vary few instances where the Illinois mines are further advanced in safety precautions than the western mines, and in some respects I believe the operators of the West are further advanced in safety methods than their eastern brothers. Great care is exercised in handling of all ventilation currents. This is an aboslute necessity, as this field is quite gaseous, and the peculiar geological structure of the overlying and underlying strata makes airtight seals very

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1963

CLARK MOSELEY RMCMI PRESIDENT 1998-1999 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 95th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 27 thru June 29, 1999 Crested Butte, Colorado

Jan 1, 1998

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

Jan 1, 1929

By Jeff Mattern

Topics of Discussion ?Navajo Mine General Information ?Mapping, Photogrammetryand Image Fans ?Planning: Equipment, Control Points, Targets ?Digital Photography ?Software Manipulations: Image Matching, Creating a 3d Image and Triangulation, ?Mapping? Geologic Structure, Data Analysis ?Conclusions ?Other Applications

Jan 1, 2005

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

The 70th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Steamboat Village Inn, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The session was called to order by Past President O. F. Lewis. Consultant, Colowyo Coal Co., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Lewis introduced President A. F. Geiger, Manager, Navajo Mine, Utah International, Inc., Fruitland, New Mexico. Following are Mr. Lewis' remarks: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the institute, guests and friends, welcome to Steamboat Springs and the 70th meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From all appearances this is our largest meeting and should be the most successful. When I last spoke to you I was President of Colowyo Coal Company and the Rocky Mountain Coal Institute but that has changed. Colowyo Coal Company was acquired last Dec. by W. R. Grace & Co. and operates as Colowyo Coal Company, Division of W. R. Grace & Co. I am confident these people will make a worthwhile contribution to the coal Industry.

Jan 1, 1974

Jan 1, 1927

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

PRESIDENT WHITESIDE: The chair will now throw the meeting open to discussion. GEO. B. PRYDE: In the old days at Rock Springs we had electric plants situated about half a mile from our mines; we had small boiler plants; we had an electric plant with about 600 kilowatt capacity. About ten years ago we discarded the old steam plants and started building towards a centralized power plant. We now have three 2,500-kilowatt turbine generators and one 1,000, and our peak load is about 7,000 kilowatts. We have had to rebuild the old power plant, scrap the old machines, and install water tube boilers. We did this as a matter of economy in a small local plant we had years ago, and it has grown to be a large central plant, supplying power for about 20,000 tons of coal daily, and distributing this power within a radius of twenty miles. We have found this method of power to be more economical than with the old plants, and the people who buy power from us in the Rock Springs field say it has been to their advantage also. We found this last year, when we had to shut down for five months, that that plant was the only plant operating in the Rock Springs field, supplying all the power, running of fans and pumping during the time the mines were shut down, and it helped the situation very much. We had an old wooden building which we had to tear down, raise the walls, and put on a steel roof; had to rebuild the boiler room and rebuild the boilers. The water situation at Rock Springs has never been very good; we get our water from wells 250 to 500 feet deep, and use one and one-quarter million gallons a week. We have two large spray ponds and we have gotten along well. There isn't any comparison between the central power station and the old method of making power. (Applause.) FRANK YOUNG: I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the paper just read, and it struck me it was remarkable how a paper prepared by anyone could be so nearly identical and coincide so very near with the experience of another. It is just like some work I have had. I had the engineering part to do for the power plant for ten years, and I think at that time we did all of the things that he mentioned in his paper. Also his analysis of the cost of power seems to me exactly right. If I had gathered the figures and made the statement myself I think it would have been very much the same as was read. The recommendation that it is better to buy

Jan 1, 1923

(The following discussion took place on this screen lecture in the dark.) MR. SHUBART: Would you give us a little .explanation as to the operation of this machine and what you are doing with it? MR. TESCHER: There is a 20- horsepower motor, rheostat, crusher, and a fan mounted on one base plate and operating on one shaft. The fan is overhung on the shaft. The only bearings you have are the bearings on each side of the crusher and the motor hearings. On one side of the ma- chine there is an opening for feeding shale. The machine is operated at 1,200 revolution per minute and as the shale is pulverized, the fan automatically exhausts fine dust from the crusher from an opening in the top of the crusher. The machine pulverizes 3,000 pounds in eight hours, reducing the materid to one hundred mesh. The last ma- chine we put in has been operating continuously fifteen hours a day for the past sixty days, without repairs of any kind. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where is the machine in operation? MR. TESCHER. At the Royal mine. We have used ordinary mining ma- chine cable in local movements of the machines. This has enabled us to have twenty-two locations throughout the mines. The mine is highly gaesous, and the machines had to be placed on intake air. MR. SHUBSRT: What type of crusher do you use? MR. TESCHER. A No. 16 Universal, operating at 1,200 revolution per minute. M. SHURART: What material do you feed to it? MR. TESCHER: We have shale three-quarters of a mile from the mine. In the winter months we have been troubled with moisture. We build a kiln and get this shale and load it into the kiln for drying and then place it into a pit car and take it into the mine. The material must be dry. We have also used slate in the mine and have had good success. The slate at the mine is fairly hard. I presume, however, that the slate will probably carry a high silica content. MR. SHUBART: Mr. Harrington claims that silica does not do the harm, as was formerly supposed. MR. TESCHER: There is still a question as to whether it is harmful or not. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any of these machines in operation closer than Aguilar? MR. TESCHER: There is one at the Alamo mine. Mr. Quealy also purchased a couple of them for use at his Wyoming mines. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Tescher regarding his rock dusting machine while it is on the table for discussion? MR. DALRYMPLE, SR.: How many men does it take to operate it? MR. TESCHER: One man operates the machine. Sometimes we put the

Jan 1, 1925

[ ] Digital images of the highwall are taken from the spoils bench. Two images of the same highwall segment are are taken from two different locations. The resulting overlapping images are used to create a three-dimensional image of that section of highwall.

Jan 1, 2005

By T. H. Butler

February 22nd, 1926. Mr. Benedict Shubart, 521 Boston Building, Denver, Colorado. Dear Mr. Shubart: At your request, am submitting to you several suggestions for the amendment of our safety code which you felt should be kept up to date. As before, am advising you that these suggestions do not have the approval of the entire Safety Committee, but rather are the individual opinions of several members who have expressed their wishes in the form of letters to me. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Dan Harrington and Mr. Wm. Littlejohn for their assistance. Would recommend the following amendment a to the various sections. Section 1. Wherever possible trolley wires should be securely hung to roof or timbers at a distance of not less than five feet and not more than six and one-half feet above rail and six inches to one side. Spacing of hangers should be from 20 to 25 feet apart. Section 2. 500 volts D. C. should not be allowed in any installations. Trolley wires should not carry a voltage of more than 250 D. C. Pumps, mining machines and other small machinery units where A. C. power is used should not carry a voltage of more than 220. Large units, such as pumps, motor genera- tor set and hoists, may use a voltage of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings. Section 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stoppings they should be properly insulated with porcelain or rubber tubing. Whenever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same

Jan 1, 1926

[ ]

Jan 1, 2001

By J. H. Emrick

When I was asked to read a paper to you, I wondered what idea I could bring before you which would be interesting and which would be helpful in your work in operating coal mines. The Institute has been studying ways and means of increasing the safety and efficiency of mine operations. Almost every subject along this line has been discussed from time to time. In thinking the matter over it occurred to me that there was one thing used by practically all coal mining companies in considerably large quantities and which in many cases does not receive the attention it should. It is the cutter bit placed in the cutter chains on coal mining machines. Coal mining machines have been repeatedly improved during the last twenty-five years until their efficiency and convenience have reached a high level. The generating units making electrical power to operate them also have been developed to a similar degree. This machinery has been in- stalled at a great expense to coal mining companies and the installation made for the sole purpose of pulling coal cutter bits through coal. Why not then give these cutter bits some attention so as to see that they do their work as efficiently as their driving and propelling units? The consideration of this question easily divides itself into three principal parts-First, the kina of steel out of which to make the bit; Second, the proper form or shape to give it; and Third, the tempering of the bit. Let us discuss them in that order. There have been tried at different times' various grades of steel for cutter bit uses. The cheaper steels, having a very low carbon content (.10 to .30 per cent carbon) have proved un- satisfactory because such steel cannot be tempered so as to produce a satisfactory cutting tool. Because of the low carbon content, it cannot be hardened to retain its cutting edge. It dulls quickly, bends easily on striking any hard obstruction in the coal, and so requires constant resetting to its original form. The high priced alloy steels when properly shaped and tempered will give a bit that would make a clean, even cut in the coal if no impurities were encountered. Such a condition is rarely found. Alloy steel is quite brittle and on striking impurities, such as sulphur balls or a sand spar, is readily broken and so the loss of material through these broken bits and the high price paid for it more than offset all the other advantages which this steel has shown in cutting. Experience has shown that steel having approximately .70 per cent carbon and from .25 to .35 per cent manganese will give the most economical results. Some mines have obtained better results by using a steel of slightly higher carbon content and in some cases a grade of tool steel has been used. The disadvantage of using a steel having too much carbon is that it can easily be spoiled in the black- smith shop by overheating. Steels having a carbon content of about .70 per cent have a sufficiently wide range of temperatures at which they can be forged and hardened so that with ordinary care and attention they are not likely to be burned. Steel of this quality, therefore, has been found to be the most practicable because of its reasonable cost, ease in working and tempering and general durability. In the early days of mining machines, comparatively few bits were used because each machine required but a few bits because there were but

Jan 1, 1925

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921