Search Documents

By Wm. Monay

MR. MONAY (Vice President Kinney Coal Co., Scofield, Utah): The past year and a half has witnessed a series of coal mine disasters in Utah and Wyoming, concentrated into the short space of a few months, following a long period of years in which the industry was comparatively free from devastating calamities. The natural result has been a hysterical activity on the part of bureaus, commissions and professional reformers who know little about coal mining from a practical standpoint. This activity has been met by the industry in Utah with an attitude of submission, no doubt the result of the fear of being misunderstood by the public. But it is my firm conviction that the lives and property of the coal industry will find their surest guaranty of protection in the humanity, and in the self interest of those operating and working in the mines, rather than in governmental regulation. Inelastic, inflexible blanket statutes and rules will simply stifle and hamper the initiative and progress of our industry in working out its own salvation, under the varying and changing conditions of different localities, different conditions, and in different mines. We who have spent our lives in digging in the mines and operating them, know more about this business than anyone else and I believe it is time for us to speak up and no longer sit meekly by while inexperienced bureaus and unskilled commissions make up laws, rules and regulations for us which when made are on the books to stay, even though in a short time they may prove inapplicable, in whole or in part, or be superseded by something different, and which in some cases create new dangers or lull us into a false sense of security. Shortly after the Castle Gate explosion in March, 1924, a new set of safety rules was issued by the Indus- trial Commission of the State of Utah to become effective July 1st of the same year, the most important of which prohibits the use of black powder in any mine--gaseous or non-gaseous; prohibits the use of open flame lamps in any mine-gaseous or non-gaseous; and requires that rock dusting in all main haulage ways as far as the freezing point and required that all mining machines be equipped with water to be applied while cutting. These rules have been characterized as "Utah's Monument to her Dead Miners" in a large poster spread broadcast over the country from an office in New York that styles itself the Association for Labor Legislation. In reviewing the coal mining history of the State of Utah, in the year 1900, a serious disaster occurred at Winter Quarters. The cause of the same is believed to be an explosion of powder that was stored in the mine, which was a common practice in the early days, and from that time until the Castle Gate disaster, March 8, 1924, a period of some twenty-four years, no explosion of any kind occurred in this district. During all this period open lamps were used, considerable black powder was used, rock dusting was unheard of, sprinkling with water was very generally done-all without any catastrophe. Since the adoption of the new rules, we have 'had a very violent explosion at the Carbon Fuel mine in Spring Canyon. At the time of this explosion, 3,000 feet of the main slope had been rock dusted several times between July 1st and September 21st. The second left entry, which is a main haulage way, a distance of 3,000 feet was completely rock dusted on the date of the explosion. This mine is not considered extremely gaseous, yet an explosion as violent as that of the Castle Gate mine occurred. Some thirty men who had been loading coal in various parts of the mine on this Sun- day, the day of the explosion, and other men employed in rock dusting the second left entry, had just left the mine a little while before it occurred, and no abnormal condition in the mine was noted. At the time of the explosion five machine men were in the mine.

Jan 1, 1925

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

A Joy Global Inc. Company [ ] ? Joy Global Inc. headquarters located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin ? P&H Mining Equipment surface mining equipment and support ? Joy Mining Machinery underground mining equipment and support

Jan 1, 2007

Jan 1, 1956

By Richard Woodward

Presentation Outline ?What types of coal analyzers are there? ?What do they measure? ?How do they work? ?How accurate are they? ?Most common applications ?Sorting ?Blending ?Prep plant optimization ?Boiler Control

Jan 1, 2006

PRESIDENT WETZEL: Gentlemen, the fortieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute will now come to order. It is my pleasure to present Mr. William Fealey, who will introduce the first speaker. WILLIAM A. FEALEY (Bethlehem Steel Company, Salt Lake City, Utah): Mr. Wetzel and Gentlemen of-the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The Governor of the State of Utah was sup- posed to be here this morning, but he heard Bracken Lee was in town and he took a runout powder. So without any further ado, I am just going to present the Mayor of Price, Utah, who is perhaps better known to all of you than anybody else. Mayor Bracken Lee.

Jan 1, 1942

By D. Harrington

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

Jan 1, 1927

PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Gentlemen, the next order of business, if you wish to discuss it is Mechanical Loading. We still have a little time left that could be devoted to that subject, and the meeting will be open now for that purpose. Where is Mr. Edge- worth? J. E. EDGEWORTH (Foreman, Union Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming): Here. PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Yon start the ball rolling. Tell us what you are doing in the Rock Springs District, on the mechanical loading. SECRETARY SHURART Mr. Edgeworth is the man at the face handling the coal. He never sees the light of day these late winter mornings.

Jan 1, 1927

By Robert E. Hanes

Coal Perspectives We are the ?Saudi Arabia of Coal Reserves? (Billions of Short Tons) [ ] However, China & India have added approximately one half of the U.S. installed base capacity for electrical generation, in TWO YEARS ? and it took us some 50-60 years to install our coal fleet.

Jan 1, 2008

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 4, 1952, Albert M. Keenan, Chairman, presiding. CHAIRMAN KEENAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have our third and final clay of our program, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your attendance, both in the past meetings and this one this morning... I am particularly delighted to see that we are all here this morning after the very enjoyable banquet last night. It is a little difficult to get people gathered up after such an occasion.

Jan 1, 1952

By Edward Bottomley

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I tried to get Benedict Shubart to have some fellow-some big fellow with a big voice-to read this paper for me, but he said there was nothing doing; [ ] that I would have to read it myself. I will try and not take up too much of your time. It is a pretty big subject, Mechanical Loading, and it covers a good deal of ground. I have merely touched on the high spots, as it were. A great deal has been preached and written in the last year or so about mechanical loading, and I doubt if any other subject in the mining industry has been discussed so freely and as often in the last few years. It is not the intent of this paper to dwell on the merits or demerits of any [ ] particular type of loader, that is, to say what the writer thinks is the most efficient or most inefficient machine. There are several types of loaders on the market to-day that are proving very successful in many mining districts. Some of these, five or six years ago, seemed to be a miserable failure from every standpoint, mechanically

Jan 1, 1926

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 Geo. A. Murphy

MR. ARTHUR E. GIBSON (General Manager, Consumers Mutual Coal Company of Utah) : I suppose the reason I was called upon to read this paper was because I was at the mine for several years, but I have not been there for the past four years and the installation has been put in since I left. This article has been written by my successor-it follows: At the very urgent solicitation of your Secretary I have consented to prepare this paper descriptive of the spiralizing plant which is a part of the new steel tipple recently erected by the Spring Canyon Coal Company to serve its mines at Spring Canyon, Utah. I have been reluctant in giving this consent for two reasons: one of which is an excellent one, and the other isn't any good at all. First,, I find that it takes a long time to become familiar with the eccentricities of spirals-to get wise to their whims and peculiarities, and while this plant has been in operation for a number of months, something new seems to crop up nearly every time I see it, and -it would be impossible to describe all of these things even if I remembered them. The second reason is, purely personal. Among the many things I have learned by attending the sessions of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is that if a man is not pretty sure of the ground he attempts to cover, he had better keep his mouth shut, because if he isn't right, he is dead sure to be called down by someone. However, as I will not attend the session, this feature will not hurt much, but it will make it necessary for someone else to read the paper and this will make it much better for those who are obliged to listen to it because I don't read English very well. To begin with I will say that what is said in this paper applies only to the plant under discussion as I have had no experience with any other plant. While spirals have been in use for quite a number of years, and there are some large plants in the East, their use has not been general, and I believe the plant at Spring Canyon is the only one in the United States west of the Mississippi River. The details of the plant were worked out by Mr. Thos. R. Stockett, General Manager of the Spring Can= yon Coal Company; it was manufactured by the Anthracite Separation Company of Hazelton, Penn., incorporated in the design and erected by the Link-Belt Company of Chicago, in connection with the balance of the tipple. It consists of five units. Each unit consists of a vertical wood column about 6 inches in diameter, and 9 feet 6 inches in height, around which the spiral is built. It is something like a triple screw conveyor, set vertically, with flights down which the coal and refuse travel by gravity in the process of separation. There are three of these flights, forming a sort of nest but about 7 inches apart, and they make 21 turns around the column in its length. These flights dip toward the column about 27 degrees; they have a uniform pitch downward of 31 degrees; they are 19 inches wide at the top (measured from the column) and taper gradually until they are about 9 inches at the bottom. They are not made with one continuous plate from top to bottom, but are made up of a number of plates. Some of these plates are slightly waved, others have small corrugations in them and still others are perforated with small holes, all of which are intended to accelerate or. retard the movement of the coal and refuse as they pass down, At intervals there are adjustable plates in the flights for the purpose of decreasing the maximum outside;

Jan 1, 1926

Saturday, June 28 A pre-convention activity kicking off the 93rd RMCMI meeting was a Saturday evening June 28 reception for all Mine Rescue participants, their convention registered spouses, professional evaluators and RMCMI Board of Directors. This was at Buddy's Run in the Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Colorado. An estimated 100 persons enjoyed the buffet: fresh vegetable erudite with ranch dressing, fresh fruit and cheese displays and silver dollar rolls filled with ham or turkey. Blue golf shirts and red caps and convention packets were distributed to each Mine Rescue team member. Evaluators received red shirts and blue caps during the reception. Meeters and greeters from the Reception Committee wore red RMCMI arm bands and were stationed at strategic hotel spots, answered attendee's questions and gave directions to the registration area. Convention packets were first distributed Saturday afternoon by Julie Cummings and Lorraine McDonald. Sunday, June 29 A 7:30 a.m. shotgun scramble kicked off the golf tourney at the Sheraton course for 145 golfers. Yes, 145! as Lois Egan, President Tom's wife, completed a five-some with Tom and their three sons. A continental breakfast preceded the tourney. Another 65 golfers began play at 1:00 p.m. making this a record number of 210 golfers! Julie Cummings and Loren Linville sold $2,620 worth of $10 mulligans to the golfers with proceeds to the scholarship program. [ ] Both golf tourneys were co-chaired by Dave Mallak and Gordon Merriam who distributed prizes at 4:30 p.m. Monday. Prizes were donated by Amax Coal Sales West, Inc.; Austin Powder Co.; BHP Minerals-Navajo Mine; Bucyrus International, Inc.; Commercial Testing & Engineering Co.; Empire Machinery Co.; Ingersoll Rand; The Jeannot Group, Komatsu Mining Systems; Long-Airdox Co.; Marston Environmental Inc.; MEGA Corp.; The P&M Coal Mining Co.; Scandura, Inc. and TerraMatrix. [ ] RMCMI registration was an all day venture headed by chair Julie Cummings and assisted by Pat Johnson. [ ] Nearly 40 persons met for a Chef Demonstration and wine tasting at the Sheraton at 11:00 a.m. Executive Chef Jacques Wilson prepared broiled achiote shrimp with cantaloupe, grilled duck stuffed blue corn pancakes with herb grained bread and fresh fruit meringues. Wilson shared his recipes with the group and appropriate wines were served with each course, all sampled by the attendees. The chef arranged an impromptu showing of the main kitchen following the demo. [ ]

Jan 1, 1997

By David R. Hammond

How Could Natural Gas be Coal?s Best Friend ? - Natural gas is the environment friendly ?fuel of choice?; coal is the opposite - 90 % of new / replacement generating capacity in U.S. projected to be gas-fired - Natural gas-fired generation market share predicted to increase to 25-30% at expense of coal - Natural gas consumption forecast to growth from 22 TCF to 35 TCF per year by 2025 - Gas has good friends in the Environmental Industries and the current Administration

Jan 1, 2003

By NA N/A

Jan 1, 1931

Kenneth M. Payne RMCMI PRESIDENT 1994-1995 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 91st Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 25 thru 27, 1995 Crested Butte, Colorado

Jan 1, 1994

[Mr. Jay Abbott Union Sply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. AchZlger Midwest Rbr 6 Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal C 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112 Mr. Dell H. Adams Kenerco Corp 5480 Swanton Dr Lexington, KY 4051 Mr. Robert S. Affleck Anderson Mavor (USA) Ltd RD #1 Box 140-Lake R Bradford Woods, PA 15015]

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1957