Search Documents

Jan 1, 1970

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

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

Cautionary Note about Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements made by us in this presentation that are not historical facts or that relate to our future plans, expectations, events or performance are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Our actual results may differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the risks described under the heading ?Risk Factors? in the Prospectus Supplement. All forward-looking statements are qualified by these risks and uncertainties. We undertake no obligation to update the information contained in any forward-looking statements unless required by law. All statements made by us in this presentation are further qualified in all respects by the information disclosed in the Prospectus.

Jan 1, 2007

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 Franklin P. Wood

Unnumbered ages have passed since the time when nature's laboratories were working without the aid of capital or labor unions assisted only by earth's cooling crust and old Sol's rays, to lay the prodigious coal beds of the earth and distil the oils which now furnish the basis for the world's great industries. Strangely enough rays from the same old sun probably somewhat diminished in intensity are still drawing from earth to clouds the water that will run down hill and through man-made devices produce energy to compete with that made with the products created in ages past. So now we find that within the past century vast human industries have grown up around the products of these agencies and here we are today discussing the many problems connected therewith and among the others the subject of this paper, which is essentially the relation of COAL to OIL in industry. The problems involved are those of human relationship and are not fundamentally unsolvable when engineering skill and knowledge is properly applied. The last few years has developed a brand of pessimism that is especially prevalent in the coal industry, at any rate in the west where we come in contact with it. In any general discussion with coal men, a very short time only is required to bring out the feeling or expression that the coal business is on the rocks and the reasons run the gamut of human deviltry. We have heard that in the not far distant past corn was so cheap that the farmers were compelled to burn it and thus deprive the coal mines of their well earned right to sell coal for this purpose. We have heard that the flood of oil is so vast that it was being burned in preference to coal, and to heap insult on injury that the rail- road locomotives were burning oil in order to pull coal away from the mines. We have heard that the union was responsible for all the woes to which the industry is subjected. We have heard that the family tin lizzie is so depleting the family exchequer that coal could not be purchased and if purchased could not be collected for. We have heard that producing mines are so numerous that the profits are a negligible quantity. These are but a few of the reasons assigned for making the coal producers a class of pessimists which is not good for the industry. All these reasons given and all the others must be taken collectively and these are not the cause but the effect of a rapidly changing civilization. An analogy may be found in the experience of many of us in the electric industry a few years ago. You may remember that less than 20 years ago the high efficiency Tungsten electric globe was introduced. It was so much more efficient than the old carbon lamp that only one-third of the current previously required was needed to produce the same illumination. Consternation seized the ranks of electrical men who had little or no vision, for the out- look was that so little current would be sold that everyone would be bankrupt. This limited vision, however, did not prevail, for all engaged in the industry spurred on by necessity, accomplished many of the things that we are now enjoying the fruits of be- cause the electric industry has grown and is growing by leaps and bounds and every highly efficient improvement is greeted with rejoicing. It is well known that when the old type of carbon arc lamp began to be replaced by modern units the manufacturer of carbon rods thought his doom was sealed and yet these same manufacturers have so adjusted them- selves to conditions that the dry battery business of today is of vastly greater volume and profit than was the carbon rod business of the past. Of course, there are industries that should not have survived anyway that have gone down and out to makeway for vastly improved conditions and can

Jan 1, 1925

By F. A. Young

A description of the dry process coal cleaning plant which has been built and operated by St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Company at their mine at Brilliant, New Mexico, should at first be a description of the special machinery which is used in this process. This equipment consists primarily of screens for sizing the coal into six different sizes all smaller than 1 ½ inch and the pneumatic machines for cleaning each size. These machines are patented and were manufactured by Sutton, Steele & Steele of Dallas, Texas, until a few months ago when all rights of sale were acquired by the American Coal Cleaning Corporation. These screens, a plan of which is now before you, are called anti-gravity screens because the coal travels up hill. The screens which we have at Brilliant are 3 feet wide and 7 feet 4 inches long. They consist of one upper deck which slopes upward in the direction of the flow of the coal, at an angle of 12 degrees. This deck is a wire mesh screen the size of which determines the size of oversize from that screen. Under this is a lower deck with a slope of 7 degrees. This is a solid bottom and is for advancing the undersize to the next screen. On account of the difference in pitch of these decks they are about 11 inches apart at the discharge end, which allows the oversize to be taken off at one or both sides and the undersize to fall only a few inches on to the following screen. This is perhaps the most valuable point in this patent as it allows any number of screens to be placed on a-level floor, tandem in a battery without elevating or rehandling the coal in any way. The length of the screens corresponds to the proper spacing of the cleaning tables which naturally operate on the floor below. I know of no other screen which can be operated in this way. The coal is caused to travel by a reciprocating motion. A shaft as shown near the center of the screen box and under it has an eccentric at each side of the screen with connecting rods attached near the rear of the screen box. The screen box is attached to the stationary under frame by means of cast iron plates extending full width across the screen box. These are placed at an angle as shown so that the forward motion of the eccentrics causes the screen box to rise as it moves forward and the backward motion drops the screen from under the coal thereby causing it to advance. The coal advancing over the screen cloth in this rolling or jumping motion causes very perfect sizing. It should be stated here that very accurate sizing is necessary for the success of the cleaning tables. The stroke is 1 inch and the speed 350 revolutions per minute. In describing the pneumatic cleaning table, I place before you a plan furnished by the makers. The basic principle is that if a film of coal one to two inches thick and all of nearly the same size pieces is placed on a flat perforated surface and a large volume of air passed through it, the lighter particles which are the clean coal will soon find their way to the top of the film, while the heavier particles, or waste, will remain on the bottom. The machine is built with a perforated deck about 4 feet square under which is an air chamber and air duct connecting with a fan which is part of the machine. The deck of the table has a reciprocating motion the same as the screens already described, which tends to advance the product up a slight slope which is adjustable. The coal is fed at one corner of the table as shown and the deck slopes also away from the feed and at right angles to the reciprocating motion. On top of the perforated deck are riffles about 2 inches apart and running parallel to the line of reciprocating motion. These riffles are about 1/2 inch high at the fan and feed side of the table and taper to nothing at the far side. When the coal is fed on to the table, the air through the perforations tends to raise it 'and roll it over these riffles down the slope toward the clean coal discharge. The heavier particles do not get over the riffles so rapidly and the reciprocating motion is constantly pushing them

Jan 1, 1923

Please note all Proceedings of the Institute were taken verbatim by stenotypists from Hyatt & Associates of Denver and editing has been minimal. MR. MORTENSEN: On behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I take great plea¬sure in saying good morning to you at Vail. With a few clouds in the sky, at least we won't get sunburned. We won't have to worry about our kids in the swimming pool, perhaps. It is delightful for me to have been able to have represented the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute for the year 1982-1983. This has been our 71st year and this is our 79th meeting. In recognizing the attendance here, that dinner we had last night, and some of our entertainment must have gotten to some of us, or it is a little early. But I'm sure as the day goes on, and with the speakers outlined, it will be very beneficial for those who do attend. We do appreciate your attendance. I'd first like to make an introduction of our head table. Doris Finnie, she is our executive secretary. As most of you are aware, Gussie Whiteside retired as secretary. This will be the first time since the Institute started that there has not been a Whiteside present at one of our conventions. I'm sure Gussie would appreciate any calls or letters that any of you would care to make to her. Doris, I might add, has been a great help to me and all of the people who have been working on the program for the Institute this past year. There's been lots of reorganization and we are very pleased with Doris's ability to take hold from Gussie without any waves. Much credit must be given to you Doris for this and we do appreciate the help you have given us and believe me she has kept us out of trouble. Next, we have Art Neill. He is our vice president of the Institute from Montana and he also works with Western Energy Company. We appreciate the help that all of these session leaders and chairmen give to us. We have other names on the head table, but they will fill in as the morning goes on, so we won't bother you with any of those at this time. To set the stage for business, first I would like to call on Doris for a motion to approve the minutes of last year. MS. FINNIE: Thank you, Vernal. Mr. President, I suggest that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the members refer to pages 9 through 80 of the Proceedings for the 78th regular meeting of RMCMI, as published MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Doris. Do we have a motion to so approve? MR. LINVILLE: I so move. MR. MORTENSEN: Loren Linville so approved. Do we have a second? MR. GARR: Second. MR. MORTENSEN: All in favor say aye. (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Those opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. I'm sure glad we didn't have to read those 80 pages. Is Doug Hammer in the audience? He was going to give us a list of new members of the Coal Institute and ask for your approval. But because of his absence, the names will be listed so that you can read them at a later date, I will entertain a motion that we approve the new members who have joined the Institute. Do I so have a motion? MR. BERNSTROM: I would make that motion. MR. GARR: I second. MR. MORTENSEN: Do we have any questions? All in favor¬ (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. Next, we'd like to proceeed with our Nominating committee report from the chairman, George Nugent, and the election of next year's officers. George, would you please take the stand? MR. NUGENT: Mr. President, and members of the Institute, your Nominating committee consists of five past presidents of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From Colorado Roy Coulson; from New Mexico, Bob Wilson; from Utah, Bob

Jan 1, 1983

By Glen A. Knox

The writer has been asked to set forth for this Institute, the experience of the past eleven months in the mining operation conducted at Sweetwater Mine in which coal has been produced by the use of Link-Belt Conveyors on long faces. The coal in this mine has an average of six feet three inches in thickness, and lies on an average pitch of five degrees. The roof is a sandy shale of medium hardness and has been generally considered as good top in the room and pillar method of mining. When our company became interested in conveyors, the writer visited most all of the mines in the East where conveyors and other mechanical methods of mining were in use and decided that the modified method of w-hat is in use at the Norton-West Virginia mine would be the most feasible for our conditions. We in- stalled three hundred feet of conveyor as an experiment to see whether or not our roof could be handled and taken care of on long faces. This three hundred feet was installed as two separate conveyors, one as a face conveyor-100 feet in length, the other as a heading conveyor that delivered the coal into the mine car on the main entry. This face was worked directly on .the strike and down the pitch. This did not prove to be a success as the caving of the roof carried over to the working face and necessitated propping between the conveyor and the face and it was also necessary to shovel coal on the conveyor up the pitch. After working out this block, 200 feet in length, we installed these two conveyors at a place adjoining this worked out block, but on a half V shape shown on the sketch. This block of coal was sixty feet wide. This method proved to be very successful. We cut a place, moved the conveyor against the face before shooting and carried two rows of cribs between the conveyor and the cave, and caved the roof every second cut. After working out this block we were satisfied that this system was feasible with our mine. We then ordered twelve hundred feet more of the same type as the trial conveyor with the exception of a very few modifications. We then installed this fifteen hundred foot unit on the four faces shown on the sketch, with one hundred feet to each face, two hundred feet on each heading and three hundred feet on the main conveyor that delivered the coal into the pit cars. We also had a head and rear section for each of the four advancing places shown on the sketch. As the sections were taken out of the heading conveyors they were installed on the advancing conveyors, and when the faces approached the main conveyor, the main conveyor was taken out and installed in the next uphill or main conveyor place. The roof caved very well in line of the points and was broken about every twenty feet. It broke in a straight line and did not curve at each V. We encountered no trouble unless we permitted one of the points to get behind. The maximum tonnage possible to be produced on this method was estimated to be seven hundred and twenty-five tons a day, assuming that all places were cut and cleaned up in one shift, and this we did for several consecutive days. While this was a success from a cost standpoint, we felt that we could

Jan 1, 1925

TABLE ONE Accidents occurring in the Coal Mines of Utah by fiscal years: [Deaths ........................ Permanent total disability ...... Permanent partial disability. .... Temporary disability: .......... 28 days and over 14 to 28 days ............... 4 to 14 days ............... Under 4 days ]

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1986

[Proceedings VOL. II. PART V. CONTENTS PAGE Mine Haulage, by R. A. McAllister-----------------145 Efficiency in Shot Firing, by Robert A. Marshall -- 149 Some Facts About Coal Mining, by Sam Andrews -153 Flexoid Tubing and Its Application to Coal Mines As a Means of Temporary Ventilation, by George A. Brown -161 Longwall Coal Mining, by Thomas Collier ------ 163 Advantages of Having Such Men as Fire Bosses Under State Rather Than Corporation Jurisdiction, by R. S. Morton ---- 165 Longwall Mining, by Parley Potter -------169 DeWatering of the Rouse Mine, by D. A. Stout ---175]

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1983

Jan 1, 1923

[ ]

Jan 1, 1996

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of Twenty-first Meeting 9 The U. S. Fuel Company's Tipple at the Hiawatha Mine John M. Jennings 11 Some Experiences With Mechanical Loading in Central Pennsylvania¬ O. G. Sharrer 13 Mechanical Loading Underground- A. W. Dickinson 25 Operation by Long-Face Conveyor Method at Sweetwater Mine Glen A. Knox 39 Discussion of Mechanical Loading 44 Discussion-Safety in Mechanical Loading 45 New Steel Tipple, Spring Canyon, Utah- G. A. Murphy 46 A Theory on the Cause of Spontaneous Combustion-C. P. Crawford... 48 Rock Dusting in the West-D. Harrington 50 Mudite-L. C. Clare 57 Discussion of Harrington's and Clare's Papers 59 Material for Rock Dust-Prepared Discussion-Edward K. Judd 60 Tipple and Mine of the Columbia Steel Corporation-T. C. Harvey 63 Mechanical Stoking of Domestic Fuel-Joseph Harrington 67 The Garrison Automatic Domestic Stoker-Lloyd Garrison 70 Discussion of Domestic Stokers 71]

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1927

Presiding: Herman Van Houten, Senior Marketing Counselor, Joy Mfg. Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., and John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal &Coke Co., Carbondale, Colorado. The Keynote Speaker, Senator Jennings Randolph from West Virginia, was unable to come due to pressing business in Washington. A film presentation on Surface Mining and Reclamation, "Energy Bridge," Courtesy of Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Company, Denver, Colorado, was shown and was prefaced by comments from James V. Fisher. "Advantages of Longwall Mining in Western Coal Production" was a paper presented by David W. Wisecarver, Supervisory Mining Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Wisecarver graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1949. After two years with International Harvester and two years in the U.S. Army, he joined the engineering staff on a Bureau of Mines underground mining operation in Virginia for eight years where he saw duties as mine surveyor, shift boss, and assistant maintenance superintendent.

Jan 1, 1977

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by John Peperakis, Manager Sunnyside Mines, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Sunnyside, Utah. It consisted of a Round Table. The first speaker was Mr. G. A. Bennewitz, Market Director - Fuels - Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, Denver, Colorado. Subject - "Transportation." Mr. Gary Bennewitz has been a Market Director of the Rio Grande R.R. since February 1968. He joined the D&RGW in 1966. Mr. Bennewitz has a degree in Civil Engineering from The Cooper Union in New York City. Following graduation, he spent two years working with a consulting soil engineer. He then went to work for the New York Central R.R. as a Structural Engineer and Transportation Economist. He also had a year's stint at the Port of New York Authority before moving to Denver. His paper today deals with some of tile economic factors inherent in the development of an efficient, economic unit train system. His experience in this vein includes trains operating from the Sunnyside Mines, of Kaiser Steel, the coal delivery system to Geneva Works of U. S. Steel, and from the facility of Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Co. at Carbondale, Colo.

Jan 1, 1970