Search Documents

At 10 a. m., Tuesday, November 12, 1912, the following members of the committee appointed by "Coal Age" to organize a Coal-Mining Institute for the Rocky Mountain region, met in the State Capitol, at Denver, Colo. : E. H. Weitzel W. J. Murray T. H. O'Brien W. B. Williams James Dalrvmple F. W. Whitksiie A. C. Watts David Griffiths The following members of the committee were not present: Frank Manley Allan French H. C. Williams Frank Cameron J. E. Pettit D. W. Brown C. H. Gibbs E. H. Weitzel acted as chairman of the meeting. This committee drew up a form of Constitution and By-Laws, to be recommended to the general meeting to be held on the following day; and, with the exception of two alterations, this Constitution and By-Laws, formulated by the Organization Committee, were accepted as a whole by the general meeting. With the exception of a general discussion of affairs that might be brought out by means of such an institute, no further business was done at this meeting of the Organization Committee, and it was adjourned.

Jan 1, 1913

PRESIDENT MOSES: I think this will conclude our program for this afternoon, unless you have some- thing else. Mr. Holman, will you tell us what you are doing in the way of your local chapter, around Dawson? W. C. HOLMAN: (Chief Engineer, Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Dawson, New Mexico.) We have organized a local chapter of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and we invite all foremen, fire bosses, shot firers or anybody interested, either on the surface or in the mine. I think at the last meeting we had sixty to seventy men present. We hold meetings once a month; usually on a certain set Tuesday or second Friday of the month, or so on. We have a President, a Vice-President and a Secretary-Treasurer. There are no dues connected with it. We aim to take up the' papers that are presented at the various meetings of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and also any other subject that would be of interest, connected with our own mining operation. We usually ask two or three men to pre- sent papers, rather than one man. We find it difficult in getting one man to work up any subject, but two or three men work up very interesting papers. While we have just recently organized, we aim to have luncheons in connection with it, and possibly once a year a banquet or .some similar activity that we think would interest the men. We feel it is going to be a great help in carrying on the work of the present organization in presenting the activities around the mines. PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Holman. Has any one any- thing to bring up at this time? MR. LITTLEJOHN: I would like to ask Mr. Holman if the Institute or the Chapter there is confined to Dawson alone, or open to other camps in New Mexico? MR. HOLMAN: At the present, Mr. Littlejohn, it is just confined to our own camp, although we intend to invite the members and the officials of the other camps later on, perhaps. Especially, if we gave a banquet, no doubt we would invite the others. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Is there any other Chapter in New Mexico besides yours in Dawson, Mr. Holman? MR. HOLMAN: None that I know of, right now.

Jan 1, 1926

Amercable, Inc. Andalex Resources, Inc. ARCO Coal Company Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc. Colowyo Coal Co. L.P. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company Crane & Hoist Sales Crested Butte Mountain Resort Cyprus Amax Coal Co. Energy West Mining Company The Falkirk Mining Company Fleischli Oil Co. Inc. Halbach & Braun Industries Hemscheidt Corporation GH Henley Industries Ingersoll-Rand Co. Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K & P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation L & H Welding & Machine Co. McLanahan Corporation National Coal Association The North American Coal Corporation Northwestern Resources Company Peabody Western Coal Company Phillips Machine Service Pincock Allen & Holt Ramsey Technology, Inc. Rust Tractor Company Salt River Project Schroeder Industries Stamler Corporation TerraMatrix TIC (The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc.) Trapper Mining Inc. Wagner Equipment Company Western Energy Company Wheeler Machinery Company

Jan 1, 1994

BHP-Utah International, Inc. Coal Magazine Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Southern Pacific Lines Tamarron Resort Utah Power & Light Company Utility Fuel

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1926

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

By Robert M. von Storch

Chairman Doc, distinguished guests, and fellow members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It's a genuine pleasure to meet with you again at the 54th regular meeting. I might add that it is always pleasant to be at the top of the batting order. The field is wide open since there is no danger of repeating something already said. At the same time, I am aware that the lead-off speaker has a responsibility to avoid stepping on the toes of subsequent speakers. I promise to confine my remarks to areas other than those to be covered by the well qualified speakers that follow. During our meetings at this convention, many fine papers will be presented. Our thanks are due Bob Williams and his hard working program committee for the superior selling that brought so many eminent speakers to our meeting. And, of course, our special thanks go to Doc Schloss, general chairman of this meeting. Doc and his able colleague, Stan Shubart, have been the spark plugs that fired up all of the arrangements we are enjoying here in Glenwood Springs. I'm sure all of us are appreciative of the many hours Doc has devoted to seeing that our meetings will be pleasant and profitable. When we mention arrangements, we always think of that master arranger, Fred Whiteside, who, as a charter member and secretary-treasurer of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, has had more to do with more matters around these parts than just about anyone I can think of.

Jan 1, 1958

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

By Michael A. Poling

Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to be with you, and to share my outlook on the future of Federal coal leasing. I'm told that you wanted the best speaker on this subject in the world. Perhaps it's a reflection of these trying financial times, but I'm glad you finally agreed to settle for the best speaker your budget would afford. I have been asked to give you some insight on the status of Federal coal leasing, and how the budget problems facing the Department will affect the coal program. So I've polished up my crystal ball, and I'll try to give you a peek at the future. Before I do that, however, let me first go back in time - to when this Administration took office in 1981. We had a coal program then, after a hiatus of ten years. But that program was untested and - for reasons well known to all of you - did not work well in practice once we began operating the program. We went back to the drawing board and redesigned the program so that it can do what it is intended to do. We've made the program more predictable. That means that when future lease sales are scheduled, those sales will be reflective and reactive to the need to lease coal. On February 26, Secretary Hodel unveiled a framework for resumption of Federal leasing program activities, ending a more than two-year suspension of regional coal sales. The new program will provide the opportunity to satisfy market demand for acquiring and developing new leases, assure the government of fair market value for its coal reserves, and provide a stable supply of coal for this country's energy needs. The new program grew out of the Department's response to recommendations of the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment, coupled with a supplemental environmental study. The Linowes Report, issued in 1984, contained 36 recommendations and three Judgments on leasing levels, tract selection, sale procedures, appraisal methods, key statutory and related factors, and organization and management of the leasing program. Major changes in the new leasing program reflect these concerns. We have developed a definition for captive tracts and devised procedures to appraise their value to the adjacent coal or mine owner. Other steps include a coal lease appraisal guide which describes our appraisal methodology and is available to the public. Improvements have also been made in the gathering of lease assignment information to help in estimating the value of potential lease tracts. To improve market analysis, a three-tiered system will be used to ensure that steps of the lease sale decision process are undertaken in the context of coal supply and demand. Regional Coal Teams will thus have the advantage of long range, regional and tract specific market studies to help them determine whether sufficient demand is expected first to warrant the initiation of activity planning, then to set regional leasing levels, and finally to actually offer specific tracts for lease sale. Sale procedures will also be improved in many ways to encourage competition, improve the chances for receiving adequate bids, and to evaluate whether bids represent fair market value. We made additional modifications to the program in response to the OTA recommendations. Regional Coal Teams have been given a larger role in recommending key decisions concerning the amounts of coal to be studied and the actual selection and scheduling of tracts for lease sale. These recommendations will be accepted unless the Secretary can cite an overriding national interest factor, or a governor's request to modify the recommendations. Smaller, more frequent sales will be held, to better judge market conditions and prevent over- or under-leasing. Public participation guidelines have been written, to document all opportunities for the public to comment at various stages in the planning process. We also decided that resource management plans prepared after the passage of FLPMA in 1976 must be completed, in order for a new round of lease sale planning to begin. The BLM will also beef up its procedures for consulting with affected Federal agencies during the planning process, to assure that the purposes and values of those agencies are considered and factored into land use decisions. To assure consistent use of an adequate data base in coal lease decision-making, Regional Coal Teams will develop standards and guidelines for data adequacy, and document the use of these standards. These procedures will also be applied to the unsuitability criteria screening process. Thus, the new leasing system announced by Secretary Hodel: is fully responsive to recommendations made by the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment for improving environmental planning and fair market value procedures; gives the regional coal teams a major say in determining leasing levels, and on the timing,

Jan 1, 1986

By Lloyd Garrison

The Garrison Automatic Domestic Stoker is a device intended primarily for residences and small apartments. In the development of the device com- [ ] mercial features have been given as much consideration as have engineering features. As a result of this consideration the stoker is well within the reach of the middle class buyer as regards price, while at the same time it possesses all of the features of comfort, economy and convenience which accompanies this type of stoker. The stoker is of the over feed type and uses the natural draft of the furnace. A 1/12 H.P., 1,800 R.P.M., motor drives a small worm gear unit through [ ] grooved pulley and rubber belt, effecting a speed reduction from 1,800 to 6 R.P.M. The gear shaft drives a slide situated in the bottom of the coal hopper that causes the coal to be deposited on a link belt chain which carries it through a trough and drops it on the grate. Use of a screw feed has been purposely avoided because of

Jan 1, 1925

CONCLUSIONS: Our experience, where we attempt to remove a continuous face with a seam more than six and one-half feet in thickness, has been rather disastrous. We have been able to open up faces and retreat for a distance of 75 to 100 feet in this particular character of coal, but after the supporting timbers have been removed for the second or third time we have found that the roof has a tendency to ride over the props and break off at the face of the coal support. However, where our coal is below six and one-half feet in thickness we have had very good success in handling the roof and breaking it off systematically with our break line of props, which are usually from 12 to 15 feet from the face of the coal. Our practice in to set props at about two-foot intervals in each direction and remove two sets of props, at the same time two additional sets are placed along the coal face. At all times we are very insistent that all props be removed from the gob and that entire coal be taken out so that it is possible for the roof to break freely and all come down, not having any supporting pillars in the gob. The conclusion of our experiments to date is that if all the supports beyond the breaking line of props are taken out as the long face retreats and the closer the breaking line of props is kept to the face the better the results will be. We have never felt it safe to have less than four rows of props to protect the machinery and men working along the coal face. We feel that the time element as to the rapidity with which these faces are advanced or retreated, is of vast importance, but to date have not had an opportunity or experience enough to reach any conclusion as to what time element is proper here with us. We feel that the crushing strength of the overlying strata will govern this to a large extent, and as ours varies considerably, it is going to he very difficult for us to reach a definite conclusion. My opinion is, that conditions may be such that rather than have a short face and retreat rapidly, it will be found that a longer facewith a slower retreat will work out better. Such a condition might give the overlying strata time to settle. The caving of roof or of control of this caving, with us, is quite closely associated with the ventilation. We find that the places where the strata overlying the coal are composed of shale, that the effect of the air on this is of very great importance. It is our endeavor, at all times, not only to remove obnoxious gases, but to keep a current of fresh air moving along the face and, of course, a portion of this travels over the gob and comes in contact with the roof and overlying strata. This, we find, helps materially in keeping the roof on the move. As it is our practice to keep water for sprinkling purposes at all places, we also use this water to keep the roof wet back in the gob. The effect of water on the shale is to cause it to disintegrate quite rapidly. MR. HOLMAN (Concluding): If there are any questions about this, I will be glad to answer them. I have some prints and also some pictures of the scraper loader and the shaking conveyors (distributes.) PRESIDENT MOSES: We wish to thank you, Mr. Holman, and also wish that you would thank Mr. Dupont for his paper. Are there any discussions? Do you wish to ask Mr. Holman any questions? (No response.) PRESIDENT MOSES: Mr. Holman, I would like to ask you how you take the photographs; were they taken by flashlight, or were globes used, or how were they taken, in a gaseous mine? MR. HOLMAN: Our mines being gaseous, we do not use the ordinary flashlight for taking underground photographs, but we have had considerable success, I think, with underground pictures by means of electric lights. We use 250 watt globes. We have six of these rigged up with tin reflectors, 18 inches in diameter, on standards, and we carry two or three hundred feet of wire connected with these six lights, and they can be turned on in the room where we take the photograph, by means of this extra wire. We set the kodak up and arrange the picture and take a long time-exposure. We usually take an

Jan 1, 1926

By Richard M. Whiting

Thank you very much for that introduction. I spent part of my early career in the coal industry here in Colorado, and I am always happy to return. In such a beautiful setting, it seems out of place to talk about "Improving the Climate". But in our work-a-day worlds, we know the climate for the coal industry is something less than picture perfect. But unlike Mother Nature's climate, there are some things we can do about the climate for coal. Today, I want to talk to you about sonic of the activities that we are engaged in... and that you can support... to improve that climate. A number of challenges and opportunities face our industry. I will try to set the stage for this conference by briefly describing the current climate for coal - which is indeed very challenging. I will then outline some of the steps we are taking to broaden our base to include our allies in the rail and electricity industries and the public at large.

Jan 1, 2000

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1955

Jan 1, 1980

By Bill Reid

Jan 1, 2007

PRESIDENT MOSES.: The meeting will please come to order. Will you kindly state your names prior to making any statements, in order that we may deep the record straight? The first paper this morning is a joint one on vocational training, by D. W. Rockey, H. A. Tiemann and Wm. Moorhead. Mr. Rocdey. (Applause.) D. W. ROCKEY (State Superintendent, Industrial Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico) (Mr. Rocdey's notes not received in time for publication.) MR. TESCHER: I would like to ask you, Mr. Rocdey, you say you gave the Phelps-Dodge Corporation financial assistance; to just what extent was the State obligated, and how much assistance was given, etc.?

Jan 1, 1927

of our good friends and fellow members: Patrick J. Quealy J. C. Roberts Gilbert Morton Sidney W. Farnham who left the world better for their having lived in it

Jan 1, 1930

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

Jan 1, 1974