Search Documents

The thirty-first regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11: 10 o'clock A. M., Wednesday, June 22nd, 1932, President T. H. Butler presiding. The Honorable Louis Marcus, Mayor of Salt Lake City, delivered the address of welcome. On motion of W. H. Bachman and seconded by D. J. Parker, it was voted that, inasmuch as the Minutes are printed in the annual bulletin, the reading of them be dispensed with. The President made his annual report. The Secretary-Treasurer made his annual report of the financial condition of the Institute. R. Dawson Hall addressed the meeting. The following committees were appointed by the President: Auditing-L. P. Pearce, Chairman; Joseph, Parmley, R. R. Knill. Nominating John Emrick, Chairman; D. J. Parker, John Marks. Resolutions-D. R. Wilson, Chairman; H. Petersen, Robert Williams, Jr. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was adjourned at 11: 55 o'clock A. M.

Jan 1, 1932

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: We have with us this afternoon, Mr. D. W. Rockey, of the Industrial Educational Organization, who would like to occupy a few minutes of our time. There is still an hour left, and there is a lot more talking to be done, and when the time is up you can go. D. W. ROC'KEY (U. S. Vocational Training Bureau, N. M.) : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I am sorry to say I am not more closely connected with the coal mining game. I am interested in it because I am interested in a great deal of educational work being done in New Mexico. Two years ago, this Institute appointed an Educational Committee to investigate the opportunity for education in coal mining, and you have the report of that committee; it was issued in May 1924. Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Moorhead of the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Mr. Dickinson, and Mr. Miller, I think, of the C. F. C I., and Mr. Pryde, were members of that committee. They investigated the work being done in Safety, Training, First- Aid, and other topics, and made a general survey of the educational problems that might be said to be of benefit to the coal operators and to the coal miners. I believe, if I understood Mr. Moorhead correctly, while this report was accepted the committee was not discharged; but everyone seemed to be a little in doubt as to whether this activity should continue. My plea here directly is, of course, to ask that they be made a permanent committee, and asked to report to you at the next meeting in February on what has been accomplished in carrying out the program that was advised by the various companies, and what success, from a standpoint of improved work and financial return to the company, has been had. I believe that the whole trend of your discussion here has shown the need or the opportunity for improved production through education. For instance your mechanical loader the need of men who are experienced along mechanical lines, rather than the old pick and shovel methods, and the need of better understanding of your problems, just as in your safety lamp discussion that came up in the report of your Safety Committee. We have also developed a new phase, a new may of getting at some of your problems at Dawson this year, that has not been covered previously. I want to ask Mr. Holman here to tell you what is being done as a starter. Remember, we have not worked this out. He will tell yon how we are making a preliminary start in training inexperienced miners with the idea of cutting the accident record and keeping the production of inexperienced men at a higher level. If you are interested in that, I would like to suggest that this committee be requested to investigate some of these things very carefully. The State of New Mexico was willing to put five hundred or a thousand dollars into this training program as an experiment. We are willing that the Institute should have the credit for it, but we want it carefully surveyed so at your next meeting or some subsequent meeting, they can say this has been a feasible project and worthy of consideration. Mr. Holman, will yon tell us a little about this? (Applause.) MR. HOLMAN: We had an idea that by putting a green man in the mine with an experienced miner, the green man would probably learn something, and not get into trouble, etc. We decided to take a certain portion of one of our best mines, cross entry room work, and establish an underground school. We picked one of the assistant foremen who was well trained in our particular mining methods, and any green man who was employed was put into this school. He was paid a salary and he trained each and every man. Each man or two men world be working in a room and we paid them the regular contract price; they were trained how to shovel coal, pick waste and various other things. Some would stay in there a month and be transferred to other portions of the mine or other

Jan 1, 1926

By George A. Brown

Flexoid tubing for ventilation and some of the reasons for its use in re-opening old workings at the Union Pacific Coal Company's mines at Cumberland, Wyoming. , These mines are located on a branch line off the Oregon Short Line Railroad, about sixteen miles south of Kemmerer. The seam averages from 16 feet to 20 feet thick and is split about six feet from the bottom with from six inches to four inches of fire, clay; and is covered by a heavy sandstone roof about 45 feet thick and a fire clay floor about 15 feet thick. Pitch of seam 21 degrees. These mines were opened up with 5 openings on the pitch to the west, with main slope, north and south manways and north and south aircourses on 50-foot centers with parallel entries driven north and south at right angles to the slope and rooms turned on 50-foot centers up the pitch ; entries being 350 feet apart and chutes used in the rooms. Several years ago there was a heavy, squeeze came on these mines which necessitated shutting down all of No. I Mine below the third entry, the slope being down to 12 entry; also shutting the lower end of No. 2 Mine down from the twelfth entry to fifteenth entry and from the third entry down to the tenth entry, so as not to work too much territory at the one time. These mines are very gassy and were subject to heavy bumps during the squeeze ; also at the present time. In reopening these slopes, aircourses and entries for the recovery of the pillars, ventilation was quite a problem, as the squeeze had caused them to be practically tight; also the rooms for about 50 feet from the entry and the face of the rooms for about fifty feet. These rooms in the open space being either filled with Methane or depleted air. It was found in opening up these entries that in driving back entries parallel with the top entries for ventilation. which had to be skipped along the barrier pillar left from the face of the rooms of the entry below, that we had more bumps or bounces which made it a dangerous proposition to nine, as it will be noted as stated that the entries, room necks and face of rooms were more or less squeezed tight, showing that all the weight was centered on these points and the more they were disturbed the more it relieved the overlying pressure and something had to give; hence the bumps or bounces which have filled slopes, aircourses, entries and rooms with coal from the ribs and face, for hundreds of feet, throwing cars off the track, both loads and empties, and throwing track up to the roof and discharging timbers. We found it necessary to abandon driving back entries and have used Flexoid tubing with small blower fans to open up these slopes, aircourses and entries which has proved a success. We have carried air for distances that would have been impossible with brattice cloth or with

Jan 1, 1921

By H. Petersen

If a coal mine producing two hundred thousand (200,000) tons of coal per year could effect a 2 per cent decrease in the percentage of slack there would be an additional 4,000 tons of prepared coal produced. Most operators will say that these prepared sizes of coal are worth about $3.00 more per ton to them than the slack or in other words an additional $12,000.00 pier year profit could be made by a decrease of 2 per cent in slack. A large tipple with all the finest modern equipment of shaker screens, conveyors, box car loaders, etc., can only produce a grade of coal dependent upon the coal delivered by the mine car at the top of the tipple. In the mine, coal-cutting machines have been doing their part for many years toward decreasing the percentage of slack. There is therefore, only one phase of production left where real effective work can be done, that is, intelligent and constant supervision of preparatory work and shooting. The quality of coal is really entirely dependent upon the kind of coal produced at the face in the mine. Our problem is therefore, at that place. The writer is thoroughly convinced that with the proper placing of holes the use of correct amount of a suitable explosive, thoroughly tamped, with the bug dust entirely removed from the mining, a decrease in slack can be effected. We will take up this problem under five headings. First-The proper placing of bore holes. Second-The proper amount of permissible powder. Third-The proper loading and stemming of the shot.-Cushing shooting. Fourth-The necessity of removing the bug dust from the mining. Fifth - The - standardization of rounds. First-The Proper Placing of Bore Holes. The most important thing and the real secret of successful blasting of coal is the proper placing of the bore hole. This results in the correct balancing of the shot and the securing of the maximum efficiency of the explo¬sive. If you are operating a mine with a 6-foot coal seam, you most likely are using a 6-foot cutter bar on the coal cutting machines. You should use three holes to properly bring down the coal. (1) A center shot in the middle of the room drilled flat, or rather parallel to the mining-the heights of this hole will depend upon the top parting. If the coal is frozen to the roof, it will be necessary to have the hole as close to the roof as possible. If there is a free parting, the hole may be placed lower but not over twelve inches from the roof. (2)

Jan 1, 1925

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

At the Annual Meeting of the RMCMI Board of Directors held June 29, 1985, the following amendments to the corporation bylaws Article III were made: Section 2. Advisory Board. There shall be an Advisory Board of Directors which shall be com- posed of all former presidents of the corporation and of the unincorporated association, also known as The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, of which the corporation is the successor. The Advisory Board shall periodically review the philosophy and policies of the corporation and make recommendations concerning the same to the Board of Directors. The Advisory Board shall hold an annual meeting at the same place as and immediately pre- ceding the annual meeting of the members in each year and written notice stating the place, day, and hour of the meeting shall be given or mailed to each member of the Advisory Board at least thirty days prior to the date fixed for such annual meeting. The annual meeting of the Advisory Board shall be for the purpose of electing a chairman from among its members and the person so elected chairman shall also serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the corporation. The Advisory Board shall meet at such other times and conduct its affairs in such a manner as it shall determine from time to time by resolution. Section 4. Regular Meetings. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held immediately following the annual meeting of the members, at the site of the annual meeting of the members, the day and time to be fixed by the Board of Directors at its annual meeting immediately pre- ceding the annual meeting of the members in each year, without the necessity of any other or advance notice. Such regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be for the purpose of considering committee appointments, and for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall also be held in the Fall of each year following the annual meeting of the members and written notice stating the place day and hour of the meeting shall be given or mailed each member of the Board of Directors at least thirty days prior to the date fixed for such regular meeting. Such Fall regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be for the purpose of receiving the treasurer's annual financial report of the previous fiscal year as reviewed and approved by the auditor, to take action on the budget, and for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting. Section 8. Standing Committees. The Board of Directors may create by resolution adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Directors, a Bylaws and Resolutions Committee, a Nominating Committee, a Finance Committee, and one or more other committees each of which shall consist of two or more directors and which shall have and may exercise such authority in the management of the corporation as shall be provided in such resolution or in these bylaws. Section 9. Ad Hoc committees. The Board of Directors from time to time may by resolution create a Membership Committee, a Scholarship Committee, an Education Committee, various convention committees, and one or more other committees each of which shall consist of members of the corporation and which shall have and may exercise such authority, other than in connection with the management of the corporation, as the Board of Directors may determine. MINUTES of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute 81 st Member Annual Business Meeting July 2, 1985 The 81st Annual Business Meeting of the mem¬bers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by the president, Charles W. Margolf at 1:35 p.m. Tuesday, July 2, 1985 in the Windom Peak Room of the Tamarron Resort near Durango, Colorado. Thirty members were present and a quorum was established. It was moved by Bill Balaz, seconded and car¬ried to dispense with the reading of the minutes as these were published on pages 67 thru 77 of the 1984 issue of the Proceedings. The chair called for reports of the various com¬mittees and these reports will be placed on file in the RMCMI Office. Bylaws and Resolutions. Chairman Loren V. Linville reported that the Board of Directors had adopted changes to Article III, Sections 2, 4, 8 and 9 calling for clarification of Ad Hoc and Standing Committees as well as setting forth a purpose for the Advisory Board meetings and stating a time for an annual meeting. He further reported that the Board had passed three resolutions: (One) Noting the passing of these members since the last conven¬tion - Einar M. Arentzen, Gerhardt A. Benne¬witz, Claude P. Heiner, Raymond A. Johnson, Vard H. Johnson, P. T. Schonstrom, Augusta F. Whiteside and Edward Wiemann; (Two) Of appreciation to the officers, chairmen and their commit-

Jan 1, 1985

[Arsulich, Thomas Mechanical Engineer, S.A.E. House, Laramie, Wyoming Barrett, A. Lee joy Mfg., Co., Research Engineer, Franklin, Pa. Bartlett, Rulon Salesman, 265 S. Seventh East, Salt Lake City, Utah Beauchamp, Paul N Goodman Mfg. Co., Sales Engineer, 2509 S. Monroe, Denver, Colorado Boyle, J. J Mine Superintendent, Roundup, Montana ?Burnell, Patrick H Gebo, Wyoming]

Jan 1, 1950

By Arline Seeger

Overview ? Lime Basics ? NLA & Its Advocacy ? State of U.S. Lime Industry ? Present & Future ? Lime?s Use in Coal?Conversion Plant

Jan 1, 2006

President Schloss called the third session of the fifty-eighth annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order at 9:30 a.m. and introduced James Westfield, Assistant Director, Health and Safety, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who presided over the session. First speaker of the session was S. L. Jewell, Vice President, Peabody Coal Company, St. Louis, Missouri, who spoke on "Our Three Main Routes From Here." (Biographical sketch of Mr. Jewell, see index.) (For the printed text of Mr. Jewell's paper see index.) Mr. Westfield introduced Marling J. Ankeny, Director, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who served as moderator on the panel, "How Do We Go From Here in Safety?"

Jan 1, 1962

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

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

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 3300 One Oliver Plaza, Pittsburgh, Pa. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club, Bldg., Denver, Colorado Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 S. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Amerman, Richard W Utah Cons. & Mining Co., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mexico Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., 848 N 3rd E, Price, Utah Anderson, John S. Utah Cons. & Mining Co., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1971

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

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. Homer Hyatt, Safety Director, North American Coal Corporation, Western Division, Castle Gate, Utah. Mr. Hyatt introduced Mr. Richard F. Walker, Vice President, Engineer & Planning, Electric Department, Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Walker is a native of the State of Nebraska, a graduate of the University of Colorado with a BSEE degree in 1949. He has been associated with the Public Service Company of Colorado for almost twenty years and in the above capacity for the last one and one-half years. Mr. Walker?s subject was "Our New Plants and Coal. (See index for printed text of Mr. Walker's paper.) Mr. John F. O'Leary, Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. spoke on the ?High Cost of Economy.? Mr. O'Leary graduated from George Washington University in 1950 with a degree in Economics. In 1950, he joined the Bureau of Mines. In 1963 he was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mineral Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior. In 1967, he was appointed Chief, Bureau of Natural Gas, Federal Power Commission. In 1968, appointed Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.

Jan 1, 1969

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

[Mr. Jay Abbott Union Sply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. AchZlger Midwest Rbr 6 Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal C 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112 Mr. Dell H. Adams Kenerco Corp 5480 Swanton Dr Lexington, KY 4051 Mr. Robert S. Affleck Anderson Mavor (USA) Ltd RD #1 Box 140-Lake R Bradford Woods, PA 15015]

Jan 1, 1984

By Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

Mr. Pickett's remarks were primarily concerned with the legislative aspects of the coal industry. Mr. Pickett stated that as a result of the 1952 election, only two senators and eleven representatives are now in the legislature who have ever served under a republican administration. He said there are 425 legislative issues now on the floor of Congress concerning the coal industry, but the coal industry has difficulty in legislation, because, although there are 31 coal states, only 11 states produce more than 5,000,000 tons per year, and 11 states produce between 500,000 and 5,000,000 tons of coal a year. In these states there are 44 senators and 195 representatives, less than a majority in either house, if all could be counted on to support the coal industry. An important committee to the coal industry is tile House Ways and Means Committee, composed of 25 members, 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Even with the support of the senators and representatives from these 22 states, legislative action is difficult.

Jan 1, 1954

By Geo. A. Brown

This paper was written from conditions existing in the Cumberland Mines of The Union Pacific Coal Co., with my impressions and cause of same. These mines are located on a branch line of the 0. S. L. R. R., about sixteen miles south of Kemmerer, Wyoming. The mines are the property of The Union Pacific Coal Company with headquarters at Rock Springs, Wyo. There are two mines, No. 1 and No. 2, located about two miles apart in a seam of coal averaging about 16 feet thick which is split with a parting of rock from 4 feet to G feet from the bottom, averaging from 4 inches to 5 feet thick, mostly of soft fire clay, with an average pitch of 21 degrees to the west. The lower coal below the fire clay band being of a soft nature, much softer than the coal above it. The cover or roof next to the coal is of a massive sandstone formation from 4 feet to 60 feet thick while the floor of the seam is of a soft fire clay as far down as has been prospected. These mines are also of a dry and dusty nature, they generate lots of fire damp and are subject to fires from numerous causes. These mines were opened up in 1900 with five openings each, Main Slope, North and South Manways and North and South Aircourses driven parallel directly on the pitch of the seam which is fairly regular, entries being turned North and South at right angles off the slope about 300 feet apart. The entries were driven double 10 feet wide with chain pillars from 20 feet to 30 feet thick. The main entries are used for haulage and main intake, back entries for return aircourses. Rooms are turned on 50-foot centers and 20 feet wide, directly on the pitch Galvanized sheet iron chutes are used in the rooms. The slopes were driven down in No. 1 mine about 4,000 feet, in No. 2 mine about 5,000 feet where the cover would be about 1,400 feet in No. 1 mine and about 1,700 feet in No. 2 mine approximately. When a point about 2,000 feet on the slope had been reached with cover, 600 or 700 feet squeezing became noticeable on the entries and room pillars with slight bumps which extended clear to the upper entries of the mines and continued to get worse as the mines got deeper and with more cover as no pillars had been removed at this time. It should be stated here that faulty ground was found on the south side of No. 2 mine and on the north side of No. 1 mine, in some places looking like a fault of a down throw, some places like a want and other places like an erosion. The latter theory seems to be correct from prospecting and drilling. The mining of entries and rooms became more difficult with more squeeze and bumps of increased pressure which closed entries and aircourses and finally caused the lower workings of the mine to be abandoned. It was then decided to open up the entries from the 6th up, or approximately half way up the slope. The opening of these entries was started with the intention of extracting pillar coal but considerable danger was met with for the entries .were squeezed tight and when they were disturbed, bumps and squeeze conditions had to be contended with, also gas and fires due to the continued grind on the pillars due to overhead pressure bringing on friction which caused innumerable fires to start in the bottom coal. Bumps being so extensive at times as to close up aircourses for 500 or 600 feet, also discharge timber, coal and rock from the rib of slope and entries for hundreds of feet, dislodging tracks and throwing mine cars around just as if an explosion had taken place, filling places with gas and throwing dust into the atmosphere so that you could cut it with a knife. It became necessary to discontinue the use of black powder and naked lights entirely as a safety precaution. Permissible Powder Monobel No. 5 and Wico Electric Safety Lamps were installed. All coal was shot off the solid whenever it was necessary to shoot. ' In opening up these entries it was found that practically all of the weight was centered on room pillars up to the first crosscut chain pillars and barrier pillars between top of rooms of entry below and the one above which averaged 30 feet thick and in all practically 120 feet of ground. The rooms were mostly open from the first crosscut up to the face which showed that the points mentioned had taken the weight. It was found impossible in some of these entries to drive double entries again as the bumps and squeeze made it impossible to maintain them. This made ventilation quite a problem, small booster fans and flexoid tubing being used for ventilation until one entry could be connected with the one above which has solved most of our ventilation problems so far.

Jan 1, 1924