Search Documents

By Wendy Hutchinson

Jan 1, 2007

By T. C. Harvey

Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. J. M. Jennings, chairman of the General Committee on arrangements during the convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute here, I have endeavored to prepare a brief description of the Columbia Steel Corporation's tipple at Columbia, Utah, and its operations, but [ ] from the fact that you have already listened to, and have been interested I'm sure, in the description given by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Murphy, on tipple construction and operations, I am taking the liberty, with your permission, to embody in my paper a description of our haulage and ventilation systems at Columbia, which I hope will be, in a measure, also interesting to you. As many of you know, we are mining on a Multiple Panel System, which while comparatively new in Carbon County, is being used successfully in various mining districts of the United States. Mine The Columbia mine is situated about four miles south of Sunnyside, Utah, at an elevation of 6,760 feet at the portal or main entrance of mine. [ ] From this portal, the main air intake or solid rock tunnel, about 1,600 feet long, runs into the mountain in an easterly direction to an intersection of the coal vein on a grade of 0.5 of one per cent in favor of the loads. There this main entry divides and forms two main entries. These are run in parallel with 100-foot chain pillars between them and protected with 150-foot barrier pillars on each side, and run into the coal in a southerly direction on a 0.5 of one per cent grade in favor of the loads for a dis-

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

Jan 1, 2009

At 5:30 p.m. a social hour was held for all RMCMI registrants on the lawn area south of the Gondola Lift House. This was followed by a western steak fry and dancing to the country western band, "The Cat's Night Out". MORNING SESSION Tuesday, June 29,1982 RMCMI golfers came out in force for a shot-gun start of the Championship Golf Tournament at Vail Municipal Golf Course which began its first session at 7:30 a.m. followed by a second at 1:15 p.m. The tournament was headed by William Carpender, chairman and his committee members Gary Bennewitz, Jr. and Gene Christmann. RMCMI members were treated to early morning rolls and coffee in the Conference Center preceding a showing of the RMCMI slide/tape program on enhancing the image of coal mining, by telling the story of the Institute. Following this, the meeting was called to order by President McKeever at 8:30 a.m. when he introduced Mr. Carl Terzian who presented a workshop entitled "Sure You Have an Image - But What Kind?". MR. McKEEVER: Good morning Carl. I see you're ready to address this bright and busy tail audience. One of the things that I really want to point out this morning and I knew we would have a second chance with Carl Terzian but Carl is someone that will leave a good lasting impression on you and what he will hopefully be talking about, as I remember, is that what he's saying here can be used personally, or for company, or for the Institute, or anything else on image. Carl is Chairman of the Board of Carl Terzian Associates. He is a prominent author, lecturer and consultant. He is headquartered in Los Angeles and he's nationally known: governmental affairs, man¬agerial development and executive speech training and has served nearly four hundred clients since 1969. Each year he travels nearly 300,000 miles to address conventions, conferences and sales and management meetings as a motivational speaker. Carl has been speaking professionally for more than twenty-five years. He was graduate magna cum laude 1957 from the University of Southern California where he was elected Phi Beta Kappa and student body president. He later served as State Department goodwill ambassador for President Eisenhower; public relations director for Lutheran Hospital Society of Southern California; dean and professor of political science and speech at Woodbury University and public affairs director for architect Charles Luckman. He has been honored for his civic and philanthropic and professional accomplishments by the Congress and State Department, California Assembly and Senate, City and County of Los Angeles, Her Majesty the Queen of England, and six times by the Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge. Carl, welcome to our Coal Mining Institute and it's been kind of a historical situation on Tuesday morning that we will probably have people straggling in after that wonderful steak fry that we had last night. You're very welcome to come and takeover the command. MR. TERZIAN: Thank you very much Ira. This gives me an opportunity for those who were in my luncheon audience yesterday to again thank you for giving me the opportunity of that platform and for the very kind comments that were made following the address. Those of us who had been working for some months with Ira, Charlie, Betsy and many

Jan 1, 1982

By George Cherpelis

1. Historical Background of the Employment Relationship A. The Relationship at Common Law 1. Jacob & Rachel 2. Domestic Relations 3. Statute of Laborers (Black Plague) 4. Puritan View (idleness as the parent of all vices) 5. Shift from law based on status to one based on contract B. Enforcing the Employee's Promise to Work I. Forced Labor a. English law b. Thirteenth Amendment 2. Forced Labor vis a vis Forced Performance - Role of the Court 3. Prevent working for another employer C. The Employer's Promise of Employment 1. Originally employment was considered of personal nature and employer could not be forced to employ or continue to employ 2. Impact of modern statutes

Jan 1, 1984

By D. Harrington

At the time of mine accidents one frequently hears the expression "there will be accidents as long as there are mines", or it may be varied to state that the accident in question was unavoidable, or something similar indicating inability to prevent accidents. However, it is the opinion of the writer, after over twenty-one years experience in both coal and metal mining, seven years being spent wholly in safety work, that by far the greater number of all accidents is due to carelessness or negligence. This carelessness or negligence may be on part of the victim of the accident or of one of his companions, or on part of his employer or possibly even of the inspector or safety man, and in some cases all of these agencies are involved. It manifests itself in various guises, one of the most serious being violation of state mining laws or regulations or of mine rules, and frequently the rules of ordinary common-sense. The cause very frequently is that trait in human nature to "take a chance" and it has been the writer's observation that the worst offender is the old-time miner who has come safely through many years experience, who was mining when the "safety man was a baby", and who clings to old-time ideas and practices and has "no use" for "newfangled" present-day "notions". Unquestionably, there are accidents, wholly unavoidable and many are caused by ignorance and by the new-comer in mining, yet as previously indicated, the writer's observation is that the old-timer is by far the worst offender, bringing grief to himself, companions and employer. Of the numerous manifestations of carelessness and negligence in connection with mine accidents, which have come to the notice of the writer, only one will be treated in this paper, viz: Violation of State Mining Law, and mention will be made only of explosions and major accidents in coal' mines with which the writer came in personal contact as investigator. In most cases, in addition to mine inspection after the accident, the writer heard the evidence given at Coroner's inquest and thus was enabled to for¬mulate fairly definite impressions as to events and conditions leading up to the occurrence.

Jan 1, 1922

By James F. Howe

Modern civilization is centered around a small group of essential occupations, the three principal ones which are agriculture, mining and manufacturing. Agriculture might be called the most important of the three, as it has to do directly with the supply of food for the human race. Mining, however, is certainly next in importance, as it furnishes the supply of fuel and many of the raw materials used in manufacturing. Without mining, modern machinery and many industrial operations would be impossible. Mining takes advantage of the, natural resources in fuel and minerals that lie underneath the surface of mother earth, and while at times some of these metals are hard to find and mines come and go, mining must continue to increase. Mining is no longer a haphazard proposition but one calling for careful study and complete plans of operation for years to come. The shafts, power houses, rock dump crusher, concentrator, and other machinery must be located advantageously in order to enable owners to make a profit. Many tons of rock or mineral must be mined frequently to get one ton of concentrated metallic ore or metal itself. Economy in mining is just as essential as it is in manufacturing. The mining engineer of today is called upon to utilize every branch of engineering, and not only, is a wide: range of knowledge required, but ingenuity to meet the unusual conditions which are constantly arising from week to week. On account of the wide variety of information required by the mining engineer, some things with which he is in almost daily contact may be passed over with only a small amount of attention, provided everything is going well, in order that time and attention may be focused on what might be termed the more important features of mining operations. Because competition has become keener than ever, owing to overproduction at times of certain minerals, it becomes a matter of first, importance to understand as far as possible the factors which enter into the cost of production of any mineral which may be mined. In such times of overproduction, the high cost mine is forced to close down while the low cost mine may, if desired, be kept running constantly. In keeping a cost record, wire rope on account of its high first cost 19 coming into the lime light, and a comparison of records of one mine with another is now frequently made in order to see whether the rope service is satisfactory or not. Every rope maker, on the other hand, is interested in seeing that the rope which he produces gives the maximum possible return for the money invested. Modern mining owes much of its success to the use of wire rope for hoisting materials from beneath the surface of the ground. Deep mining would be impossible without the use of wire rope as a means of hoisting. A study, therefore, of rope problems in mining work and a discussion of the points which are beneficial to maximum life will enable the mining engineer, manager, or superintendent to keep his costs down to the minimum while at the same time he provides a suitable and sufficient safety factor for operations at all times. Mining might be defined as the extraction of coal, metallic ores, or minerals from below the surface of the ground. This definition does not cover what is known as, open pit operations or quarrying but covers the

Jan 1, 1922

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

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 1926

By Joseph Harrington

It is sufficiently correct to say that domestic solid fuel is universally hand fired and it is almost as correct to state that a very large proportion of hand-fired domestic fires are extremely inefficient and smoky. This is particularly true with raw bituminous coal for the fuel. The smokeless and efficient firing of domestic coal affords one of the most difficult problems confronting the combustion engineer. This is due to the universally constricted combustion space in the domestic furnace, the complete ignorance regarding the laws of combustion on the part of the average person, and the fact that the laws of efficient combustion are almost completely nullified under these conditions. It is well to familiarize ones self with these laws. These are: 1. The gradual introduction of the fuel to the furnace. 2. The admission and mixing of the right quantity of air with the coal gases. 3. A temperature high enough to permit complete combustion, and 4. A furnace space of volume sufficient to permit of the combustion gases and the oxygen getting together within the confines of the furnace. Even a casual inspection of the domestic heater will show that none of these essential things are present in proper degree, and this is the reason why the problem of domestic firing presents such difficulties. I have analyzed these conditions in a paper published by the Black Diamond, and which has already had wide distribution, so that I will not repeat the rather lengthy discussion in this paper. A survey of the entire field indicates very clearly that a reversal of existing methods and equipment must be had before any real improvement can be expected. It is my firm belief that in this instance above all others it is necessary to build the efficiency and smokelessness into the equipment in such a manner that its performance will be entirely independent of both skill and interest on the part of the operative. To attempt to educate every man, woman and child who periodically throws coal into a domestic furnace would be literally impossible. Much can be done, however, if we could teach the householder the simple essentials of alternate firing, which I have explained at length in the above mentioned paper. This would go a long way toward making the domestic furnace problem more satisfactory, as well as efficient and smokeless. Many will argue, and with good reason, that the domestic fuel should be prepared coke and with this I agree up to the limit imposed by the practical considerations of quantity production, price and the possibility of marketing the by-products. It will be obvious that if enough raw coal should be processed to provide all of the required domestic fuel that the amount of by-products recovered during the coking process would be so great that there would be little or no market at any price which would justify the manufacture of coke. If the by-products were wasted they would not only be a tremendous economic loss, but the price charged for the coke would probably be so high that the market would be limited, and this would defeat the very idea of the whole thing. Much can be done, however, in advancing the use of coke, but I believe that much more extensive and careful experimentization should be had in order to determine the right size and quality of coke for the various domestic furnaces. If coke were to be developed for extensive domestic consumption it is more than probable that the coking process should and could be stopped at a point where the volatile content of the coke would be sufficiently high to permit of prompt ignition and combustion in low draft installations. If the volatile content were from five to ten per cent a very different kind of coke would be produced from that which is now produced with perhaps one per cent of volatile. A skillful manipulation of this feature would make coke adaptable and satis-

Jan 1, 1925

By Fredrick D. Palmer

U.S. ENERGY: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST Assessing Goals, Needs and Resources ?Decision-makers must balance the needs of average Americans with the need for: ?A strong economy ?A clean environment ?A secure nation ?Events of recent years ?terrorist acts, multiple energy crises and a global focus on sustainable development ?magnify the need to balance these principles ?Coal ?domestic, abundant, affordable and increasingly clean ?meets these needs like no other energy source

Jan 1, 2003

Meeting called to order by President Herres, eleven o'clock A. M., Monday, August 27, 1928. Address of Welcome by Mr. T. S. Taliaferro, Jr. Address by Mr. William Redshaw, Chairman of the Rock Springs Chapter of the Institute. Paper, "The Effect of Mechanical Coal Mining on Mine Safety," by Lyman Fearn, State Mine Inspector, Wyoming. Paper, "Safety," F. C. Miller, Chief Chemist, Colorado Fuel & Iron Com¬pany, Trinidad, Colorado. Afternoon session, meeting called to order two P. M. On suggestion of Mr. William Littlejohn, the President appointed a special resolutions committee, consisting of Messrs. P. J. Quealy, R. L. Hair and William Littlejohn, to draft resolutions protesting against the granting of a franchise for piping natural gas into Salt Lake City, to be sent to the City Commissioners of Salt Lake City, with carbon copy to the Utilities Commission of Utah. The Committee submitted resolutions which, upon motion of Mr. Littlejohn, and seconded by Mr. Butler, were adopted and sent by telegraph to the Utilities Commission and the City Commissioners.

Jan 1, 1928

[ADDISON, HERBERT Big Horn Collieries Co., Colo. Bldg., Denver, Colo. ALEXANDER, JOHN 825 So. Gaylord St., Denver, Colo. ALLAN, DAVID Lafayette, Colo. ALLEN, JOHN Ludlow, Colo. ALLEY, GERALD Box 1920, Denver, Colo. ALLISON, ARCHIE Box 562, Walsenburg, Colo. ALLISON, D. S 1331 Roberta St., Salt Lake City, Utah AMBLER, J. B c-o Ambler & Riter, Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah ANDERSON, A. E 403 Ideal Bldg., Denver, Colo. ANDERSON, FRANK Crosby, Wyo. ANDREWS, SAM Box 91, Walsenburg, Colo. ANGUS, WILLIAM -o B. W. Snodgrass, 1575 Lafayette St., Denver, Colo. APPERSON, A. B Tramway Bldg., Denver, Colo. ARMSTRONG, C. D 420 U. S. Natl. Bank Bldg., Denver, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1977

Jan 1, 1967

Chairman: Mr. R. C. Heers, Project Manager, Kaiser Company, Inc. CHAIRMAN HEERS: Fellows, I can't say it gives me a lot of pleasure to call this meeting together because I would rather somebody else had the job. I haven't anything to say this morning and I think the sooner we get started with the fellows that have something to say, the better pleased everybody will be. The first speaker this morning is Mr. John Griffen of the McNally Pittsburgh Company. He has a talk on coal preparation and I am pleased to present Mr. Griffen.

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1978