Search Documents

Jan 1, 1924

By Lyman Fearn

Men and institutions are what they are largely because of inheritance. Out of the past comes experience that enables men to build more wisely than did preceding generations. The field of possibilities has widened as the horizon of men's vision has been extended. The realization of these possibilities has depended largely on the application of men's natural endowments, brain and brawn, to the problems at hand. In the field of mechanized mining, Wyoming has a greater percentage of men with vision, who have a realization of the possibilities of mechanized mining, than any other state in proportion to tonnage production. With the introduction of mechanized mining systems have come problems that have caused the men who are connected with the safety work much thought. Discussions on mechanical drilling, cutting, loading, conveying, haulage, etc., have come in for their share of the debate. There have been a few attempts made to show that mechanical mining is safer than are the more primitive ways of doing underground work by man power. We also have a number of places in the coal producing States of the United States, where the mechanized systems have been abandoned chiefly on account of the safety element involved bringing about condemnation of the system by State inspection forces. Certain types of scraper systems have been condemned, and some have voiced opposition to long faces. This would lead us to believe that the question is still a debatable one as far as the safety element is concerned. It is only fair that we discuss the operations of mechanical systems and from the results obtained take analysis of conditions as they exist, basing our conclusions from the results obtained.

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1967

By L. C. Clare

In a meeting of this kind where everyone present is connected with or engaged in coal mining, and where each one is present with the set purpose of learning new thoughts or ideas, the subject of the saving of life by any method in the industry is a vitally interesting and important one. On the cost per ton basis, it mounts to a formidable figure especially so during these days of depression and stagnant, or no business. But entirely outside of the human side of the question, to lose lives would cost more than saving them. Your insurance under haphazard safety measures would mount, loss of time due to accidents would impair efficiency among employees and the breaking of the morale of the staff, due to criticism of lax methods would cost more than an efficient safety program. Taking it for granted that most of you are looking at the question from the viewpoint of a yearly or five-year cost sheet, and that at this time you are doing all that can be done without bringing a ruinous cost upon your companies, I can offer only one suggestion: Raise the quality of your safety, or lower the cost. In this meeting, there should be no question of standing still or retreating in the quality of safety, so I will amend the suggestion with "Raise the quality and lower the cost." We have learned that when the coal beds were forming, nature sealed them in with a strata of mud that the ages have turned to shale, sealing them effectively against the deteriorating influences of the air. Mudite is carrying out nature's plan of coal preservation to the inside of the coal mine. Text books teach us that a large proportion of the vegetation that forms our present coal beds grow on what might be termed mud, later falling and being buried practically where it grew by mud, then on being subjected to heat, pressure and time, was changed to coal. The mud being subjected to the same three forces forms our present shale stratas. Now if nature saw fit to use this solidified mud as a preservative through countless centuries, isn't it reasonable to expect that occasional coatings on the ribs and roofs of entries and rooms will aid materially in preserving our coal and coal dust? Nature took mud and formed it into shale; mudite takes the shale, reduces it into dust, adds water and makes a mud, applies it to the ribs, roofs and floors of the mine in a thin coating

Jan 1, 1925

By F. C. Miller

The briquetting of fuel is an industry centuries old and has followed the hammer and tongs method of making use of any by-product fuel by the simple process of sticking the mass together with anything that will stick. If fuel briquetting, as an industry, once in the lead over coal mining, had kept pace by introducing science, there would not at this time be the mad scramble to look up the fuel briquette family tree and accept every new method as fruit without the cultivation that makes fruit worth while. Cultivation of industry is a mass of evidence showing a tremendous expenditure of money for mistakes paving the way to success. Cultivation of the mining industry is practiced by nations and low temperature distillation and fuel briquetting will in the near future receive the same consideration. Fuel briquettes were used as a winter fuel in Ireland and Scotland before the discovery of America' or the introduction of coal as a fuel to replace briquettes in Ireland. This industry was practiced by the peasants who collected peat from the bogs and cut it into brick-shaped blocks, which were set up to dry in the sun and stored under cover for use or for sale. Demand for peat briquettes led to competition that resulted in a highly refined fuel. In some localities the peat was ground and purified from the earth by washing before placing in presses to squeeze out the excess moisture and form a block of peat about four inches thick. These blocks, after standing in the sun for a few weeks, were cut into briquettes about four inches square by twelve inches long and moved under cover where they remained until thoroughly dry. In this form peat makes an excellent fuel with considerable heat, small amount of smoke while burning, and tough enough to stand hauling in carts and boats without breakage. Slack from domestic coal, non-coking and anthracite, has until recently commanded a very low price and the attention of briquette men has centered on ways and means of preparing this class of fuel for the market in the form of briquettes. Industrial plants with automatic stokers have taken kindly to cheap slack or slack that was cheap because the price has been boosted to a figure where the cost of slack plus the cost of binder and operation makes fuel briquettes somewhat expensive. However, fuel briquettes are being turned out in commercial quantities to compete with prepared lump coal and the demand is in favor of the briquette man. Science has been called to aid the briquette and it is possible to purchase a complete coal briquetting plant that will turn out between four tons per hour and thirty tons per hour of briquettes at a calculated cost per ton to cover material and every item down to insurance on the plant. A few briquettes are being ' made with a mixture of- Portland cement and pulverized coal, where this class of briquette is cheap in the making, there is the increased amount of ash due to the cement to contend with and the briquette is not one that can compete with lump coal. Most binders have a fuel value, such as coal tar, pitch, asphalt residium, flour, glue and secret binders. Most briquettes are of an egg shape, weighing between one and one-half ounces and five ounces, pressed to form with a pressure varying between 1,000 pounds and 2,500 pounds per square inch. This' pressure, together with the binder, make a lump of fuel harder than most grades of soft coal. Most of the briquettes are free from pitch odor, and any tendency to leave a trace of the binder on the fingers, easy to handle, quick to, ignite, high in heat value and capable of indefinite storage without any change. Evaporative efficiency of briquetted fuel in stationary, marine and locomotive boilers has proved that a great many low-grade coals can be fired successfully in the briquetted form, where the same fuel without briquetting failed to give boiler rating.

Jan 1, 1923

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, 1924

Jan 1, 1924

In this very interesting paper, Mr. Harrington mentions a considerable variety of materials suitable for use in the rock dusting of coal mines; this suggests that you may possibly be interested in same purely theoretical figures tending to show the superiority of gypsum for this purpose. Some of the gentlemen present have found difficulty in applying a thick, adherent coating of dry gypsum to the ribs and roofs of their workings, for which reason pulverized gypsum will perhaps be chiefly useful for the loading of barrier troughs. In view of the function that rock dust is expected to perform in case of a coal-dust explosion, it seems obvious that the most efficacious dust will be the one that can absorb the most heat and absorb it most rapidly. The customary rock dusting materials differ considerably in this respect, depending principally upon the facility with which they can be decomposed at the temperatures encountered in a coal-dust explosion. Such stable materials as silica, anhydrite and flue-dust vary but slightly in their heat-absorbing capacities, the specific heats of minerals in general ranging between 0.19 and 0.22; on the other hand, gypsum and limestone, as well as certain argillaceous materials such as shale, adobe, etc., are capable of absorbing additional heat through their chemical dissociation, although, as will appear later, it is questionable whether the amount of heat thus absorbed, in the case of limestone, shale, and adobe, is large enough to have any practical value. As to the temperature developed by a coal-dust explosion, the Bureau of Mines reports one test in which gold foil was melted, and others in which silver foil was melted, but not gold; hence 1832° F. (1000° C.) seems a reasonable figure to assume for purposes of calculation. Normal temperature is taken as 68° F. (20°C.). The other fundamental data required for the computations as cited by various authorities, are as follows: [Specific heats Gypsum : 0.259 Calcium sulphate, anhydrous. . .190 Limestone 0.216 Lime 0.239 Clay, shale, silica, etc. usually not exceeding 0.220 Carbon dioxide .:0.217 Steam (at atmospheric pressure)0.500 Heats of formation CaSO4+2H2O-4.606 Kg-cal. per gram molecule, or 48.2 B:t:u.' per pound of gypsum.- CaO +C0,42.5 Kg.-cal. per gram molecule, or 765 B.t.u. per pound of limestone. Latent heat of vaporization of water. from and at 100°C.. 535.9 Kg.-cal. per kilogram (964.6 B.t.u. per pound).] Computations will be based on the Fahrenheit scale and British thermal units, as probably more familiar in the coal industry. First as to the inert materials: their heat-absorbing capacity per pound is simply the product of their specific heat, say 0.22, multiplied by the assumed rise in temperature, 1764° F., or 388 B.t.u. per pound. Gypsum, CaS0, 2H.0, though apparently perfectly dry, contains 21% of combined water. When gradually heated it will have liberated three-quarters of its water freely by the time it reaches 250° F.; the remaining one-quarter is retained to a somewhat higher temperature, but the last of it will have been expelled at 482° F. For calculating the total heat absorbed in raising gypsum (or its products) to the temperature of a coal-dust explosion, no serious error will be intro-

Jan 1, 1925

By E. H. McCleary

The Alamo Mine The Alamo mine is located about seventeen miles northwest of Walsenburg, Colorado, on the Loma Branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad, in the foothills of the Black Mountains of Huerfano County. Prospecting Mr. W. B. Lewis of New York City, president of the Oakdale Coal Company and also president of the Alamo Coal Company first became interested in this property in 1920. After all natural features of the surface had been carefully examined by Mr. Lewis, he was convinced that the property was underlaid with coal seams. Plans for prospect drilling were made at once and this drilling was started late in 1921. In all, eight drill holes were put down to the Trinidad sandstone which underlies the coal measures in this field. These drill holes in general, showed very satisfactory results. Two workable coal seams were penetrated by most of these drill holes, the upper seam being six and one half feet thick and the lower seam having a thickness of ten and one-half feet. The two seams are separated by forty feet of sandstone and shale. Analyses of the seams proved each to be of a very high grade bituminous coal possessing hardness much above other bituminous coals, and having very bright lustrous appearance. Tests of more than a year's duration proved the coal to store excellently in closed bins and also in open bins where coal is exposed to elements. The drill hole data further showed the coal seams to pitch more than fifty per cent or about twenty-six and one-half degrees. The pitch direction being approximately South 65 degrees East. The drill holes further proved the coal seams did not outcrop at any point on the property, and no evidence of coal outcrop has been found in near vicinity. A splitting and pinching out of seams was found to occur some two hundred to three hundred feet of theoretical outcrop at very Western boundary of property. The most Easterly or No. 6 drill hole has a depth of eight hundred fifty feet to floor of lower coal seam. The Trinidad sandstone was found to be immediately under the lower coal seam, and the Pierre shales lying under this sandstone. Plans for Development and Sinking Having obtained sufficient data, plans for development of the property were carefully made sometime in advance of the actual opening of the mine. Every condition was carefully studied and the maximum production of clean and well prepared coal at as low a cost as possible during the entire life of mine was kept uppermost in the minds of all. The life of mine is estimated at approximately fifty years. It was decided to open up the lower and thicker seam first, and due to the pitch and other conditions a slope opening was decided upon for its extraction. The pitch of the coal having been found to be from fifty to sixty per cent or twenty-six to thirty degrees, the plan of driving the slope directly down the pitch of seam was eliminated and a plan that would give a more economical grade was decided upon. To obtain a lesser grade, a point several hundred feet west of-and at a less elevation than the theoretical outcrop of coal seam was selected for the slope opening. (Fig. 18.) To have driven directly down the pitch of coal seam would also have given the slope an uneven grade as the pitch of coal seam varied as it approached the crop. From this point of opening, the slope was to be driven on a thirty-one per cent, or' about seventeen degree pitch to intersect coal seam in No. 6 drill hole, a distance through the Pierre shales and Trinidad sandstone of two thousand five hundred fifty feet, the slope to be driven practically due East

Jan 1, 1925

By F. A. Young

A description of the dry process coal cleaning plant which has been built and operated by St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Company at their mine at Brilliant, New Mexico, should at first be a description of the special machinery which is used in this process. This equipment consists primarily of screens for sizing the coal into six different sizes all smaller than 1 ½ inch and the pneumatic machines for cleaning each size. These machines are patented and were manufactured by Sutton, Steele & Steele of Dallas, Texas, until a few months ago when all rights of sale were acquired by the American Coal Cleaning Corporation. These screens, a plan of which is now before you, are called anti-gravity screens because the coal travels up hill. The screens which we have at Brilliant are 3 feet wide and 7 feet 4 inches long. They consist of one upper deck which slopes upward in the direction of the flow of the coal, at an angle of 12 degrees. This deck is a wire mesh screen the size of which determines the size of oversize from that screen. Under this is a lower deck with a slope of 7 degrees. This is a solid bottom and is for advancing the undersize to the next screen. On account of the difference in pitch of these decks they are about 11 inches apart at the discharge end, which allows the oversize to be taken off at one or both sides and the undersize to fall only a few inches on to the following screen. This is perhaps the most valuable point in this patent as it allows any number of screens to be placed on a-level floor, tandem in a battery without elevating or rehandling the coal in any way. The length of the screens corresponds to the proper spacing of the cleaning tables which naturally operate on the floor below. I know of no other screen which can be operated in this way. The coal is caused to travel by a reciprocating motion. A shaft as shown near the center of the screen box and under it has an eccentric at each side of the screen with connecting rods attached near the rear of the screen box. The screen box is attached to the stationary under frame by means of cast iron plates extending full width across the screen box. These are placed at an angle as shown so that the forward motion of the eccentrics causes the screen box to rise as it moves forward and the backward motion drops the screen from under the coal thereby causing it to advance. The coal advancing over the screen cloth in this rolling or jumping motion causes very perfect sizing. It should be stated here that very accurate sizing is necessary for the success of the cleaning tables. The stroke is 1 inch and the speed 350 revolutions per minute. In describing the pneumatic cleaning table, I place before you a plan furnished by the makers. The basic principle is that if a film of coal one to two inches thick and all of nearly the same size pieces is placed on a flat perforated surface and a large volume of air passed through it, the lighter particles which are the clean coal will soon find their way to the top of the film, while the heavier particles, or waste, will remain on the bottom. The machine is built with a perforated deck about 4 feet square under which is an air chamber and air duct connecting with a fan which is part of the machine. The deck of the table has a reciprocating motion the same as the screens already described, which tends to advance the product up a slight slope which is adjustable. The coal is fed at one corner of the table as shown and the deck slopes also away from the feed and at right angles to the reciprocating motion. On top of the perforated deck are riffles about 2 inches apart and running parallel to the line of reciprocating motion. These riffles are about 1/2 inch high at the fan and feed side of the table and taper to nothing at the far side. When the coal is fed on to the table, the air through the perforations tends to raise it 'and roll it over these riffles down the slope toward the clean coal discharge. The heavier particles do not get over the riffles so rapidly and the reciprocating motion is constantly pushing them

Jan 1, 1923

By O .. G. Sharrer

Loading mechanically has of late become the most widely discussed subject in connection with coal mining and has even equalled. the discussion of safety measures as a topic of interest. The subject has been discussed in the various mining journals and by well. informed persons at the Mining Institutes, so it would appear; that all has been said that can be said until further experiments bring out new lines of discussion. It is, therefore, not the intention to present this article as a technical discussion of the subject of mechanical loading as a whole, but rather as a plain talk on machines with which the writer has had personal contact. In 1919, during the first period of post-war depression, a Pennsylvania coal company employing union labor became interested in the possibilities of mechanical loading with the hope of reducing their mining costs, which were and are yet too high to meet competition from the non-union fields of Somerset and Westmoreland counties. Of several loaders presented for their consideration the model of the Joy loader shown by Mr. Joseph F. Joy, seemed to hold the greatest possibilities, and after extended study, the management decided to invest in a machine of this type. A machine was built, which as far as the writer knows was the only one of its type ever put on the market. This machine arrived at one of the mines early in 1920 and was put to work immediately. It was a forerunner of the present 4-BU and 5-BU types, but differed from them very radically as to design. In general the machine consisted of the familiar Joy gathering arms and a short conveyor which discharged into a steel tank which held about four and one-half tons of coal. This tank was emptied by a second conveyor which placed the coal in the mine car. The object of this conveyor tank was to provide storage room while changing cars and to allow the machine to load on the entry while the room was short. This plan was very efficient and from our experience was worth retaining, but has been abandoned by the Joy Company on account of its making the machine unwieldy. The whole machine was mounted on caterpillar tractors which were driven by two 10-H.P. Westinghouse series wound motors, each having its own controller, the controllers being arranged in tandem so as to be operated by the same handle. This very ingenious scheme which is shown in Figure 4, was supposed to make it possible to steer the loader by the controllers. By swinging the handle one way both motors moved forward, by swinging the handle the other way both motors moved backwards and by twisting the handle as shown by arrows, one motor moved ahead and the other back, thus causing the machine to turn. This scheme proved a failure as the loader was too temperamental and erratic in its operation. After Mr. Joy, himself, narrowly escaped serious injury, this device was taken off and the controllers manipulated separately. This system never proved satisfactory and was abandoned' for

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 Grainne A. Matthews

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1932

Jan 1, 1950

Jan 1, 1978

Jan 1, 1952

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1948