Search Documents

The third session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Edward G. Fox, President of the Bitumious Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., at 9:M A.M. He stated he had enjoyed being present at the Institute the past two years, and was honored to be asked to preside at this morning's session. Mr. Fox introduced Cloyd M. "DOC" Smith, Vice President of World Mining Consultants, Inc., Washington, D. C., whose talk, "World Trade in Coal" was illustrated with a number of graphs. (See Index.) M. E. "Shorty" Wade, Assistant Purchasing Agent, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana, California, was introduced and gave a paper on "What Is Required to Realize Profits Through Purchasing." (See Index.) Mr. Fox suggested that all members take an active part in their association. He stated that much more can be done in association work than as a lone wolf. He urged all to support their organization and stay with it. It is for each member's good and not for the good of a few. Carl G. Schilbe, District Manager, Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Ohio, was introduced, and he presented a paper on "Results of a Study in Belt Idler Design -The Perma-Seal Idler." This paper was illustrated with a number of slides. (See Index.) "Operation of A-C Mines," was the topic covered by W. C. Painter, Service Engineer, Joy Manufacturing Company, Price, Utah. (See Index.) Each of the papers was well received, and presented a number of things valuable to all who heard them. Mr. Fox then turned the meeting back to President von Storch who read several announcements of committee meetings, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 A.M. for an afternoon of recreation before the banquet and dance that evening.

Jan 1, 1958

The 64th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at Jackson Lake Lodge, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President .Tames Westfield. He introduced Mr. Raymond C. Lillie, President of Grand Teton Lodge Company, who welcomed the members to Jackson Lake Lodge. Mr. Lillie stated he had been with the organization since the Lodge was built. They had a snowstorm the day before our meeting so stated it was perfect weather for coal miners. Mr. Westfield introduced President Joe T. Taylor, Superintendent, York Canyon Mine, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Raton, New Mexico. Mr. Taylor was born in Miami, Florida. Attended the Colorado School of Mines and graduated in 1952. He was associated with Sunnyside Operations of Kaiser Steel Corporation in Utah until 1962. Was then transferred to the Koehler Mine in Raton, New Mexico, as Superintendent, and had charge of opening the new mine, York Canyon, and at the present time is in charge of Kaiser operations there.

Jan 1, 1968

By C. A. Allen

In presenting a summary of the uses of fine and pulverized coal the writer has borne in mind that we are not trying to determine what a combustion engineer should know but we are only trying to find out in what ways the consumption of slack can be stimulated. First discussing the use of powdered coal it can be stated that it has passed the first experimental stage but is still capable of much development and improvement. It has already found successful application in stationary and locomotive boilers, cement kilns, calcining furnaces, reverberatory smelting furnaces and many other types of furnaces, such as open hearth furnaces and annealing furnaces. For stationary boilers it seems to have been thoroughly demonstrated that powdered coal is more efficient than stoker installations. Over-all efficiences of boiler and furnace in stoker installations of the best type run from 70 to 76 per cent; whereas the efficiency of powdered coal installations averages slightly over 80 per cent. However, due to the increased cost of pulverized coal, the increased efficiency of these installations over stokers, from a money stand-point, will not be more than 1 or 2 per cent. The fusing of the ash in pulverized coal installations has given some trouble but apparently is easily overcome, on the other hand the fine ash, which is carried along with the draft, causes trouble both in the boiler and by settling on surrounding buildings or ground. Offsetting the disadvantages the great advantages of pulverized coal for stationary boilers seem to be: First-the ease with which a change in the load on the boiler can be taken care of. Second-when a boiler is cut out for a short period the "stand-by" losses are much less and, Third-a much poorer grade of fuel can be used. In many cases where pulverized coal has been used it has replaced slack coal which is of little advantage to the coal operator. However,, in other places it has replaced gas or oil and this is where the coal man is interested. Pulverized coal has the same advantages as the liquid or gas fuel but the question as to which is preferable depends on their relative cost at the point of use. In small stationary boilers where stokers are not used, very frequently the larger sizes of coal are, and it would be an advantage to the coal industry for them to be converted so as to burn pulverized coal, but so far there are only records of a few of such small installations having been a success and there is apparently room for a large amount of experimentation. In furnaces, such as smelting and assaying furnaces, annealing furnaces, etc., slack coal is not used and where pulverized coal has been installed it nearly always replaces fuel oil or gas. Just how much increased consumtion of coal can be made by pulverizing it for use in furnaces of this type can not be determined but it seems worthy of investigation. For locomotive boilers pulverized coal has found some application up to date but where it was being used in the United States it was stopped when we entered the war. In Brazil, however, the Central Railway has been using pulverized coal for locomotives with excellent results. If it could be possible to apply it to locomotive use where fuel oil is now used, or the larger sizes of coal, it would certainly make a big difference in the slack situation. Now as to the uses of slack coal without pulverizing. The writer's investigations lead him to believe that the greatest opportunities in this direction are in the line of increasing its use by apartment houses and small home owners. In fact in looking into the subject I found that a number of men in Salt Lake City are using run of mine coal in the usual type of house furnaces, some of them by separating the fines and wetting them down before feeding to the furnace claim they get no loss whatever through the grate. However, for best results with fine coal different types of furnaces must be installed and for apartment houses it would seem necessary to have either a small automatic stoker or else spray the fine coal in with an air blast from

Jan 1, 1922

This session was devoted to Surface Mining. Presiding was Virgil W. Carmichael, Vice President- Exploration, North American Coal Corporation, Bismarck, North Dakota, and John (Jack) F. Ratchye, Manager of Marketing and Resources, Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. Mining District, Sheridan, Wyoming. Subject-The new Federal Surface Mining Regulations-a thorough briefing as to content of law and how it will affect western mining. Introductory Speaker: William Hynan, Senior Vice President, National Coal Association, Washington, D.C. (See index for printed text of Mr. Hynan's paper.) Panel Members: The first speaker was George M. L. Robinson, Senior Hydrologist, Peabody Coal Company, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Robinson has a B.S. Degree from New Mexico University, Portales; Masters in Hydrology, Kent State, Ohio.

Jan 1, 1978

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel, 919 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan, Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Anderson, Nephi W :Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo:]

Jan 1, 1961

The 69th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in Manor Vail Lodge, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President Joseph E. Ward, former District Manager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. and now retired. Mr. Ward, after reading a brief biography of President O. F. "Os" Lewis, introduced him to the assembly. Biographical sketch read as follows: Mr. Lewis is President, General Manager, and a Director of Colowyo Coal Company. "Os" was born in Reno, Nevada. He attended the University of Utah at Salt Lake City, Utah, and later the Denver University in Denver, Colorado. His career in the Western Coal Industry started back in 1923 when he was employed by the Central Coal and Coke Company of Salt Lake City, Utah, as a clerk, then chief clerk and as a traveling sales representative for a period of 13 years. Later, in 1936, when that company was acquired by an affiliated company of Harris Coal Company, he was transferred to Denver as Assistant Sales Manager, Purchasing Agent and later as Executive Assistant to the President.

Jan 1, 1973

By Bob Burnham

Agenda 1 Overview of forecasting process 2 Review of Pre and Post Recession Forecasts 3 US Demand/Supply Summary 4 Coal Demand by Region 5 Coal Distribution by Census Region 6 Coal Price Outlook 7 Carbon Cases 8 Takeaways

Jan 1, 2009

Jan 1, 1994

By Thomas Lien

Session 1 - 1 :45 p.m. June 27,1983 Session Chairman: Robert Diederich, RMCMl New Mexico Vice President MR. DIEDERICH: My name is Bob Diederich. I'm the Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Insitute from the state of New Mexico. I'm manager for the Navajo Mine down in Farmington, New Mexico and also project manager for a new mine that we're starling out called the LaPlata Mine in the same area. I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Tom Lien, who is the Director of Engineering, Western Division of AMAX Coal Company. He is responsible for mine engineering, environmental engineering, permitting, reclamation, planning, design and construction plant engineering, geology exploration, quality control and real estate for the western division. He joined AMAX Coal in 1980 as manager of preparation and quality control and was promoted to the present position in August of 1980. He has a BS in geological engineering from the University of Mines. He previously worked for Kennecott Copper Corporation in Hayden, Arizona from 1965 to 1970. He worked as a mine geologist, mill metallurgist, mine production and quality control engineer. Then he also worked for Kaiser Steel Corporation, Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine in California, 1970 to 1977. Worked as a process engineer and plant superintendent at that place. Then he was employed by Mountain States Research and Development, Tucson, Arizona, 1977 to 1980. Worked as a senior process engineer and operation superintendent. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Tom Lien who will talk to us about in-pit coal crushing. MR. LIEN: Thank you. The official title of my paper is actually: "The Potential for In-pit Crushing and Conveying in the Powder River Basin." The Powder River Basin is one of the world's greatest coal fields and will be an important source of energy for centuries to come. About one-eighth of the total coal producing in the United States comes from the Powder River Basin, and 80% of that production came out of Campbell County, Wyoming last year. The growth potential for this region is projected to be enormous. New technology as well as existing technology will make this region competitive in the decades ahead. Understanding the current status of the Powder River Basin, both the mines and the possible methods for changing the means of material movements within the mines is the subject of this paper. Each mine is unique and must be addressed specifically with respect to the application of new and innovative technology. There have been many articles written in the recent mining journals on in-pit crushing and conveying applications, including costs which are very interesting, enlightening and I recommend it to any company considering such installations. To give a general setting, coal production in the United States for 1982 was about 800,000.000 tons. This production came principally from six regions, the Applachian fields of the eastern states where bituminous and anthracite coals have been mined for almost three centuries, the Midwest located in the upper Mississippi Valley are often typified by huge dragline operations of which AMAX Coal has three right now, the Gulf Coast lignites. feeding mine-mouth power plants, the vast bituminous and sub-bituminous departments of the four-comer states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah and finally the Northern Great Plains lignite fields currently being developed and the sub-bituminous fields of Wyoming and Montana including the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. It is the darker brown right in the center of the photograph. It covers about 18,000 square miles. It's about 200 miles north to south and 90 miles east to west. The shallowest coal beds are on the east, north and northwest edges of the basin with deeper coal beds toward the center in the same kind of relationship. There are about one trillion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, that's the one with 12 zeros after it. A little bit there. It's distributed in many, many seams at varying depths to the current topography. In 1982 about 100,000,000 tons of coal were mined from this basin and 81,000,000 tons came out of Campbell County, Wyoming. The mines that are shown in this picture are basically the mines around the basin edge. The principal area that I'll be talking about is the eastern edge down where it shows Gillette and Campbell County. Geologically the Powder River Basin is the Fort Union formation. The most productive seam is called the Wyodak or Smith-Roland or the Anderson-Canyon, depending upon where you're located. There is about 75 billion tons of coal in the Wyodak of which about 23 billion are considered surface minable today. the coal is Paleocene in age, about 40,000,000 years old. It was once an old Delta region very much like the Mississippi River delta is today. During the 100,000 years that this deposit was formed peat accumulated to a thickness of about 365 feet. It was later buried and turned into sub-bituminous coal. All of the coal mined in the basin is for the electric utility industry. This coal has a typical BTU content of about 8,300 plus or minus about 4,500 BTUs. Sulfur coal is generally less than'/ %, thereby making this coal compliance coal in terms of sulfur dioxide emissions, 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

Jan 1, 1983

By Bret K. Clayton

Jan 1, 2004

By S. R. DeBoer

A study of Western cities reveals the fact that a city where people make their homes for permanent residence is always a city with, well-shaded avenues, with parks and playgrounds; in other words, a beautiful city. On the other hand, the average city that lacks these qualifications is usually a city of transient population. Many of our Western cities must be classified as such. Their inhabitants live in such a city only to the time that they will be able financially to retire from business and go to one of the other types of cities to live; or until opportunity offers itself for a position or a job in such a city. I believe that our Western coal camps could benefit by this truth. If conditions can be created in the camps that will encourage the workers to settle permanently or for a long time at least in the town, it would greatly aid in stabilizing employment. By the term "workers" I do not mean the pick and shovel men alone, but everybody from the superintendent or the manager down; for the educated part of the population suffers probably greater from a desire for better surroundings than the less educated part. Modern City Planning tries to show the way for more attractive towns; for more practical towns also, and at less expense. The grid-iron system of street planning is slowly being replaced by one that fits the contours of the site. Instead of streets that are cut through the hills and built over the valleys to get practical grades, it tries to show how these streets can be made to fit the ground and produce better traffic lines; greatly more attractive streets; better building sites and lots, and all of this at less expense. A well-planned town of this character should have as its nucleus, a central square around which the main stores and business houses are grouped. The main building of this group should be the church, the community meeting place, city hall or such other buildings of a public or semi-public character, that are imposing enough to add interest to the square. From this central square, streets should be built to radiate out in all directions, more or less like a spider-web. The main lines of these streets should be reserved for traffic purposes and they should be wide, for the town may grow into a city, and they should be direct, connecting the town center with outlying points at the shortest and easiest possible line. Between these radiating streets should be residential streets of narrower width and arranged in such a way that fast through traffic cannot pass over them and make them unsafe and unsanitary for family life. Following up the comparison with the spider-web, the town should have circular streets, encircling the whole town with rings at various distances out, along which circular lines parks should be located. In the West, where the need for shade is so great, the town should surround itself with a belt of forest trees. Such a forest belt would break the winds and shelter the town, and also make the whole town a cozier, nicer place to build a home in. A forest belt of this kind does not necessarily mean a great layout of money. Trees can be planted small and at little cost and a carefully studied irrigation system will make the maintenance cost small. If the town has any places of natural beauty they should be carefully preserved and made accessible. Natural parks of this type will often take the place of the artificial parks of large cities, and at no expense to the community. Playgrounds, a swimming pool, either of concrete or a sanded beach on a lake; a place for all to go skating in winter; a hill for sledding in

Jan 1, 1924

By Ron Harper

Jan 1, 2006

[Abbott, Jay Tusco, Box 1008, Price, Utah 84501 Abrahamson, Gary W Melroe Melroe Mult. Wheel, 1301 Iowa Ave., Longmont, Colo. 80501 Acre, Lee Roadside Mining Corp., 2684 Carol PI., Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Adams, Bob Energy Fuels Corp., Box G, Steamboat Springs, Colo. 80477 Adams, David Empire Energy Corp., Box 68, Craig, Colorado 81625 Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 924 No. Washington Rd., McMurray, Pa. 15317 Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver, Colo. 80201 Adams, E. E Armco Steel Corp., Box 53, Parker, Colorado 80134 Adams, Kenneth L Arch Mineral Corp., 33 Carnation, Belleville, Ill. 62221 Adams, Martin R Energy Research & Develop. Adm., 20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20545 Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 1911 Denver Club Bldg., 518 - 17th St., Denver, Colo 80202 Albert, Darrell Mine Safety Appliances Co., 400 Penn Center Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pa. 15235 Albrechtsen, Ray H Mountain States Resources Corp., 1399 So. 700 East, Suite 11, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105]

Jan 1, 1977

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 301 N. Memorial Dr., St. Louis, Mo. 63102 Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 1400 17th St., Denver, Colo. Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah Archer, Bryan J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M W. RD 1, Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E. Lee-Norse Co., 6030 55th Pl., Arvada, Colo. Arentzen, Rolf F Lee-Norse Co., Box 582, Charleroi, Pa. Arnston, E. K Standard Oil Div. American Oil, Rt. 1, Box 504, Golden, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex. Audin, Clement, Jr Champion Coal Mining Co., Paonia, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1969

The Fortieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order in the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, Wednesday, June 10, 1942, at 11:30 a.m., by President, Wetzel, who presented Mr. William A. Fealey who, in turn, introduced Mr. Bracken Lee, Mayor of Price, Utah, who made the address of welcome. President Wetzel then made a few remarks. The Secretary announced with regret that, due to the critical illness of Mr. Sidney Hale, he would be unable to at- tend the meeting. On motion of Charles M. Schloss, duly seconded and carried, the reading of the minutes of the Thirty-ninth Regular Meeting was dispensed with. Mr. Schloss also moved that the Chair appoint the usual committees, which motion was seconded and carried. President Wetzel then announced that the committees would be appointed during the afternoon session. Following routine announcements, the meeting recessed at 12 o'clock noon to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

Jan 1, 1942

President Loren V. Linville opened the meeting at 930 a.m. He called on the Auditing Committee to give its report. Bob Wilson, Chairman, read the report and asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. The Resolutions Committee was asked to present its report. Mr. Herman Van Houten submitted the following: (I) RESOLVED, WHEREAS, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the Coal Mining Industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: Thomas L. Gambill William G. Gray W. S. Landers J. O. Lively J. Vaughn Wilcox NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE- SOLVED, that there be spread upon the minutes of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute recognition of the passing of these members, who have so greatly contributed to the advancement of the industry, both nationally and in the Rocky Mountain area, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the next of kin as evidence of the sincere regard and sympathy of the members of the Institute.

Jan 1, 1980

The ninth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation was held in conjunction with the RMCMI 2000 convention at the Sheraton Tamarron Resort, Durango, Colorado June 25 thru 27. The purpose of the mine rescue evaluation program is to provide an opportunity for mine rescue teams to learn new skills and improve their existing ones in a non-competitive environment. Several staged "disaster" scenarios were [ ] held where the teams are called upon to exhibit their life saving abilities. The evaluators meanwhile are offering suggestions, both verbal and written, to help the teams better understand the situations presented them. This non-competitive environment allows the teams to work together and share their knowledge with fellow mine rescue teams providing everyone with a positive learning experience. Mine Rescue Chairman Bill Balaz was in charge of coordinating the events. Seven teams consisting of seven to ten members each (totaling 63 members) participated in the two-day event. Each team was required to respond to three different real-life scenarios plus a written general knowledge test daily. This year's four professional evaluators included Art Saenz (Hazardous Materials) of Western Envi¬ronmental Associates; Guy Horton (Ropes), Guy Horton Rope Rescue; Mary Bailey (Medical), MBA Training and Ron Lauer (Confined Space) also lassos Western Environmental Associates. They cash prov- [ ] ided three different challenging mock situations per day per team. The teams had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios would be as details were provided only as they arrived. Ten volunteer victims added much drama and excitement to the event. Their realistic enactments, complete with false blood makeup and severed limbs, made for some very tense scenarios. The Mine Rescue Teams participating this year were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navajo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Longview, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River, Wyoming and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, Montana. Many new [ ] friendships were made and much knowledge shared. A swap meet was held Saturday afternoon for the teams to exchange miscellaneous equipment, hats, shirts, etc. The teams were asked to evaluate the program and the evaluators. Then responded with many positive suggestions that will help improve the upcoming events in the years to come. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning awards breakfast where the teams were presented with plaques. The participating victims and evaluators were also commended for their outstanding efforts. Sponsors for the Mine Rescue program were Big Sky Coal Company, CMC Rescue, Magnum Metals, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Electric. Many hours of volunteer time and effort from various family members of participants helped make the 2000 event a huge success.

Jan 1, 2000

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan,-Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, John P Development & Resources Corp., 50 Broadway, N. Y. 4, N. Y. Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Archer, Bryon J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1963

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

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