Search Documents

[Mr. Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co PO8 3007 Gillette, WY 82716 Mr. Jay Abbott Union Supply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal Co 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112]

Jan 1, 1983

The 77th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Marriott's Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Loren V. Linville, District Sales Manager. Industrial Products Division. Uniroyal. Inc., Denver. Colorado, called the meeting to order. He introduced President, Edward F. Ziolkowski, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Energy Development Company, Hanna. Wyoming. A biographical sketch follows: Ed Ziolkowski is a 1953 graduate from the Colorado School of Mines with a degree in Engineer of Mines. His mining career began with Pickands Mathers Company in Gogibic Iron Range in Northern Wisconsin and Michigan. In 1961 he joined Texas Gulf Sulphur Company as Shaft Mining Engineer for their Cane Creek Potash Project near Moab, Utah. After serving as General Mine Foreman. Mine Superintendent and General Superintendent at Cane Creek, he was transferred in 1969 to Green River. Wyoming as Project Manager of Texas Gulf Black's Fork Trona Development. In 1971 he joined Allied Chemical Green River Works, as Resident Manager. In 1972 he joined Energy Development Company, an Iowa Public Service Company Subsidiary, as General Manager of their Coal Development. He currently is Senior Vice President and General Manager of Energy Development Company, and serves on their Board of Directors as well as the Boards of several other subsidiaries. This past April he was elected to Iowa Public Service Company's Board of Directors. Ed, his lovely wife Pat and children live in Hanna, Wyoming. He has been a member of the RMCMI since 1973. Is a staunch supporter of his community and the mining industry.

Jan 1, 1981

John P. Thomas, President. B. W. Snodgrass, Secretary-Treasurer. San Andrews, mine boss, Morley. Richard Bickerton, Tabasco. E. P. Bayles, superintendent, Cokedale. Clyde Campion, parting tender, Valdez. O. C. Cook, 406 East Seventh, Street, Trinidad. James Cameron, superintendent, Hastings. Charles Chambers, superintendent, ,Sopris. Arthur Dennison, Trinidad. Samuel Dean, mine inspector, Delagua. F. S. Dunlevy, assistant engineer, Hastings. L. R. Douglas, assistant engineer, care Danford & Sanderson, Trinidad. W. E. Danford, superintendent, Segundo. M. O. Danford, superintendent, Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co., Trinidad. John Dougherty, mine foreman, Morley. J. C. Davidson, timberman, Valdez. William Easton, fire boss, Valdez. George Fortune, electrician, Primero. D. J. Griffiths, chief mine inspector, Trinidad. J. E. Hanes, assistant engineer, Hastings. Joseph Haske, superintendent, Primero. O. C. Erwin, electrician, 714 Pine Street, Trinidad. R. J. Jinkins, superintendent, Morley. Thomas jolly, superintendent, Gray Creek. James Jamieson, assistant mine boss, Valdez. James Kilpatrick, fire boss, Tobasco. L. M.. Kuhns, first-aid miner, care Mine Safety Car No. 2, Trinidad. William B. Lloyd, 404 East Seventh Street, Trinidad. J. C. Lawrence, machinist, Starkville. R. A. McAllister, mine inspector, Trinidad.

Jan 1, 1913

By D. Harrington

E. H. DENNY (United States Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado) In the absence of Mr. Harrington it is my privilege to read his paper, which is in his usual, forcible and sincere style, and it is within the province of this Institute, certainly, to go into it as it concerns safety and efficiency in mining. He brings out some points in his paper that, I think, are well worth the consideration of the Institute. The figures he uses were compiled by Mr. Adams, of the Bureau, and cover a five-year period. However, examination of similar Bureau figures for a ten-year period, or any other long period on other bases brings out similar results. The figures in this paper have been based on the million hours of exposure of accidents, and the figures based on three hundred working-man-day basis, or on tonnage, brings out similar results. This paper is entitled "Accident Record in Western Mines," and it is, in a way, an amplification of Mr. Harrington's letter which was read at the Glenwood Springs Meeting.

Jan 1, 1927

By Paul A. Lang

Jan 1, 2007

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

By R. A. Marshall

Much has been written by men connected with the coal mining industry, and mining laws have been enacted for the safety of the men employed in the mines, and for the protection of property connected therewith. It seems almost impossible for anyone to select a subject that has not already been read, discussed and put into effect, especially in the coal mines of Western America. There is, however, a subject of much interest to the mining public, and to which I have given a great deal of study and consideration, and which I believe will be received by this convention, and will be given due consideration in the future in applying it to the safety of the mine,- "Efficiency in Shot Firing." Beginning with 1865, and for a period of 28 years in the state of Colorado, the annual reports of the chief inspectors show that 1159 coal miners were killed in the following manner: Five hundred eighty-two by falls of rock and coal ; 517 by gas and dust explosions; 6o by careless handling of explosives and the shooting of coal by the, individual, miner. It is my firm belief that 75 per cent of these fatal accidents might have been avoided, if a safe and proper shot firing system had been installed, at each and every mine. This may sound unreasonable, but I believe that the blasting of coal by the individual miner, and the use of black powder, squibs and fuse has, in reality, caused the death of many miners, from shock after blasting, the shooting out 'of timbers, and working in powder smoke, which fatal accidents were attributed to falls of rock or coal. These conditions led the people of Colorado, through their representatives of the General Assembly of Colorado, to enact a new coal mining law, and in 1913 this law became effective, containing twelve sections devoted to the subject of Efficiency in the System of Shot Firing. During the period 1913 to 1920, the employment of a shot firer, the use of permissible. powder, and the electric hand battery has resulted in safer mines, safer miners and safer shot firers, and I believe every coal mine in the state should employ first-class, certified shot firers, use permissible powder and fire the shots with an electric hand battery. I believe where gas generates in dangerous quantities, which is generally determined by inspection of the mine, and the daily report, the shooting in. such a mine should be done by electric battery located outside of the mine. Where permissible powder is used, I have seen the shot firer start down the mine with a belt around his waist containing one hundred caps, a safety lamp to test for gas, and an open light to ignite the fuse. Would it not be much safer for the shot firer if he used the electric hand battery? In non-gaseous mines where black powder is used, I have. seen the miners carry fuse into the mine, and shot firers have been known to partly tamp the holes, which was

Jan 1, 1921

(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

By I. N. Bayless

The subject of Premium Payments for Mechanical Loading was given consideration by the management, having in mind they would prove an incentive for increasing the tons per man shift, make for a lower production cost and allow the ambitious workman an opportunity to augment his earnings over the regular day wage rate, a standard of performance having been established by the operator which would be expected from the employee. Any performance above the standard is looked upon as a saving to the operator of which the employe benefited to the extent of receiving a certain percentage of the saving effected. The premium must be high enough to be worth while to the employee and low enough to in¬sure a saving to the employer. This method of sharing tends to pay men in accordance with their ability and effort. One of the principal advantages of this method of sharing is that a better class of labor may be attracted. Greater earnings furnish an incentive to increased tonnage. Workmen who prove themselves aggressive are readily noticed by supervisors, and, by shifting men to different places and to different working conditions, the crews are made more efficient and the inefficient workmen may be singled out and eliminated, thus permitting better results and better operation of the mechanical loading equipment. This is also evidenced by the fact that men become their own competitors, also working in competition with other crews. In order to do this, without neglect to the care and protection of the loading machines, men are educated to the proper handling and care of the machinery, keeping it in shape and everything clean in general, which has shown good results.

Jan 1, 1932

The meeting was called to order with President George B. Pryde in the chair, and C. M. Schloss, acting Secrcetary. The meeting immediately pro¬ceeded to the reading of the papers. Mr. L. S. Ickis read a paper by A. L. Jones, entitled, "Underground Sub-Station Control," and elaborating on the general topic of automatic sub-stations. The discussion was led in part by Mr. E. H. Weitzel, acting as Chairman, in Mr. Pryde's temporary absence. Mr. S. R. DeBoer, who specializes on landscape architecture, gave an interesting talk on the subject of "City Planning and Landscape Architecture for Western Coal Camps." Notes were taken of this talk, which will be found in the proceedings. Mr. Pryde then resumed the Chair; There was no discussion of this paper. Mr. Thomas Foster, of Reliance, Wyoming, then read his paper on "Coal Dust in Mines." After the discussion of Mr. Foster's paper, the discussion of Mr. McKeehan's paper on track bonding, read at the Salt Lake meeting, was resumed, and this discussion will be found printed separately in the proceedings. Mr. Schloss then read an amusing and friendly telegram from C. H. Stevenson, of Price, Utah, which caused considerable merriment, and the Chairman asked Messrs. Weitzel, Littlejohn and Schloss to form an appro¬priate answer, and they answered it in the same spirit. The Chairman then announced the banquet for Wednesday evening and the Theatre Party for Thursday evening. The meeting then adjourned. The meeting resumed at 10:15 A. M., Thursday, February 14, 1924. The Chairman announced a photograph of the meeting to be taken at noon, on the Post Office steps, after which the Chairman appointed a nom¬inating committee, consisting of George A. Murphy, F. W. Whiteside and

Jan 1, 1924

By Steve Griles

Mr. Griles did not make his speech available for reprint. Looking Down the Road: The Environmental Side of the 1990s and Beyond Environmental Social Responsibility Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, Widow Combs, Bohpal and Three Mile Island are familiar names to all of us-names which evoke memories of environmental tragedies. These memories, as well as memories of other environmental disasters, lead us to pose this question: What is the nature of the environmental social contact between industry and society? The manner in which one answers this question will. in large measure, answer the question of where one thinks environmental issues will go, or should go, in the 1990s and beyond. The history of the evolution of the environmental movement will be helpful in defining and under- standing just what society's environmental responsibility is and, perhaps, what it will be. To Define the Future Start With the Past The common law, which most of the United States adopted from the English system of jurisprudence, traditionally considered pollution control and other environmental issues to be a matter of determining the relative rights of private property owners and of individuals. Legal and equitable theories, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass and the law of riparian rights, were utilized to allocate responsibilities between parties under the common law. The discharge of pollutants into streams and into the air was by and large considered acceptable, at least up to the point that another's "reasonable" use of the same air or waterway was significantly impeded. Further, the judicial decisions interpreting the applicability of the common law to the protection of the environment generally reflected the social and economic pressures of the age. During the Industrial Revolution, the decisions and policies had a marked tendency to favor industrial development. Jobs and industrial growth are deemed as important, and in some cases more important, than the protection of people and property. Additionally, the idea of a social responsibility, beyond that owed to a competing land or water user, was nearly alien to the early common law.' One could even go so far as to say that, had there been a social environmental contract under early common law (which, of course, there was not); but if there were, it would have been to promote actions which facilitated industrial development, even at the expense of the environment. Post-World War LI industrial expansion brought with it a growing awareness of limits on the environment's ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution. Thus evolved an era of social and political adjustment, as society began to shift away from supporting big business and industrial development and toward supporting domestic government programs and limits on industry. States gradually stepped in with efforts to address environmental issues. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the West Virginia Surface Mining Act of 1939, while lax in comparison to today's standards, nevertheless marked definitive efforts toward altering the balance between industrial development and environmental protection Pollution control continued to be viewed as a state responsibility through the 1950s, until Congress began, for the first time, to allocate funds for federal research on air and water pollution and to implement

Jan 1, 1988

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 S. W. Farnham

We have listened to many papers describing mechanical loaders, and systems of mining planned to increase their efficiency. We have become familiar with the various types and in a general way, their capacities and limitations. Messrs. F. E. Cash and E. H. Johnson in Bulletin 17 of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, subject Coal Mining Investigations, have a very complete review of the loading situation then. Mr. A. W. Dickinson, in a recent paper before this Institute, gave a later illustrated review of mechanical loaders. On page 28 of Cash & Johnson's paper is a list of loading machines to which might be added to bring the list down to date, the following: Under Digging and Loading Machines The Goodman Power Shovel Under Scraper Loaders The Goodman 436-G-3 125 H. P. three drum Scraper loader The Goodman 35 H. P. Entry loader and the Two Drum 125 H. P. Hoist built by Vulcan of Denver for scrapers Under Shaking Trough Conveyors The Eickhoff Conveyor The Link-Belt Conveyor The McCarty Duck-bill which is really a digging and loading element built to attach to the end of and operated by a reciprocating conveyor. The outstanding feature in this line of work in the past few years is the fact that a few very successful operations have been worked out on a large scale; the officers and staff in charge of this work have gone into details very thoroughly and altered and improved, in many cases, their mine equipment and mining methods, and by the exercise of persistent energy and intelligent effort, in the face of frequent difficulties and discouragements, they have attained results that are far ahead of the average loader operation. The coal mining industry owes much to these men for the pioneering and development of mechanical loading; their investigations in transport, shooting, shearing, snubbing, cleaning, and production costs, the results of which they have given freely and frequently to the public, are of great value. Foremost among the pioneers in this work are the Union Pacific Coal properties, the Quealy properties, the Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company and in the Central West, the Union Colliery Company of Illinois. On the other hand, in the great majority of installations, one loader, or possibly two or three loaders have been started in a given operation and through failure to make the proper effort to improve their transportation and work out the systems to utilize their loading machines, the loaders have not shown appreciable savings and in many cases, the installation has failed. It has been frequently stated in many meetings where loading has been discussed, that the idea of mechanical loading must first be sold not only to the operating staff but to the entire personnel of any company where installations are made. The problems involved in the successful application of this equipment are such that it requires enthusiastic and wholehearted teamwork on the part of everyone connected with the work and when difficulties arise, they must be ready to exercise initiative and try new ways oftentimes of overcoming impediments. The closest attention now is given to the question of economics how much will a loader reduce the cost of coal in any particular situation? Without fear of successful contradiction, I believe that experience up to date has unquestionably shown that where the shovel type of loader can be properly used, it produces in wide work, the cheapest coal of any loading device yet brought onto the market. Naturally there is a considerable difference between the results from different makes of shovels.

Jan 1, 1926

By D. C. McKeehan

The use of electric power was introduced in this field in the year 1892. The initial installation being an engine-driven generator and one nine-ton haulage locomotive using 500-volts direct current. Reference to this locomotive appears in the issue of COAL AGE for February 24, 1921. For a large coal field, the conversion to electricity has been very complete, there being no compressed air machines in service and but one steam driven hoist, that at No. 1o mine and located within fifty feet of the present power plant boiler room. Two eight-ton haulage locomotives, installed in 1896 and still in use, justifies the service and the equipment. These mines used the pioneer types of electric cutting and drilling machines, the story of which is, no doubt, familiar to you. The extensive use of electric power began in 1900, when there was installed four 400 k.w., 500-volt direct current engine-driven generators. These were cross-compound machines and operated non-condensing. By 1910 the mines had developed main haulage entries of several miles in length and a working territory of about six square miles in area. The necessity of supplying adequate power at the working face required a local power supply from motor-generator sets in various parts of the mine to supplement the power furnished by the engine-driven generators. The power to these motor-generator sets was supplied by a 300 k.w. high pressure non-condensing turbo-generator delivering 2300 volts, 60 cycle, three-phase current. This marks the beginning of the use of alternating current for mining purposes. In 1913 new mines were being developed at Reliance, seven miles distant, and the plant was enlarged to accommodate a 750 k.w. low pressure, condensing turbine, utilizing the exhaust steam from the cross-compound engines and the 300 k.w. turbine. Transformers were installed for supplying Reliance with power at 13,200 volts. In the course of time the old engines began to dismantle themselves by throwing various pieces, such as cylinder heads, about the building, damaging walls and switchboards, and created a general feeling of unrest among those who had to do with power production. The limitations of the old engines that had given admirable service for ten years were recognized. The source of exhaust steam became questionable and in 1915, a 1000 k.w. high pressure condensing turbine was installed in order that a more general use could be made of motor-generator sets for the direct current supply. The plant at that time containing a 1000 k.w., a 750 k.w., and a 300 k.w., in alternating current generators, supplemented

Jan 1, 1921

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

The following pages contain valuable information about the products and services offered by our advertisers

Jan 1, 1982

RMCMl PRESIDENT CHARLES W. MARGOLF on behalf of The RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers invites you and your family to attend The 81st Regular Meeting and Convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to be held at Tamarron, Durango, Colorado JUNE 30, JULY 1 AND 2, 1985

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1987

[ ] RMCMI PRESIDENT 1985 - 1986 ARTHUR K. NEILL on behalf of The RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers invites you and your family to attend The 82nd Regular Meeting and Convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to be held JUNE 29, 30 AND JULY 1, 1986 Kalispell, Montana

Jan 1, 1985

[HORACE MOSES President Gamerco, New Mexico BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado ROBT. L. HAIR Vice-President for Colorado VIRGIL M. McKNIGHT Vice-President for New Mexico A. E. GIBSON Vice-President for Utah THOS. FOSTER Vice-President for Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: J. B. DICK Walsenburg C. M. BILLINGTON Lafayette NEW MEXICO: W. C. HOLMAN Dawson ROBT. WYPER Gallup UTAH: R. R. KIRKPATRICK Sunnyside GEO. A. SCHULTZ Latuda Wyoming: EDWARD BOTTOMLEY Kleenburn QUINCE RICE Superior]

Jan 1, 1926