Search Documents

Jan 1, 2009

By N/A NA

Jan 1, 1967

The Saturday morning session of the Forty-seventh Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 9:30 o'clock a. m., June 9, 1951, in the Junior Ballroom of the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City; Utah, with Mr. A. P. Cederlof presiding. CHAIRMAN CEDERLOF: Mr. Whiteside suggests that we have the Treasurer's Report. Would you like to read this report,: Mr. Reese? MR. GOMER REESE, SR.: Gentlemen, we have here the Auditor's report. A. B. Foulger, President The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Dear Mr. Foulger: Following is the report of the Treasurer from May 31, 1950 to May 31, 1951: [ ]

Jan 1, 1951

The 67th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the C'est Bon Hotel, Park City, Utah, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Company, Carbondale, Colorado. Mr. Reeves introduced President Max A. Robb and read a brief biography as follows: A Westerner by birth, he has chosen to pursue his mining career with United States Fuel Company, a subsidiary of United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company. United States Fuel Company is the largest underground producer of commercial and utility coal in the Intermountain West. Max attended Utah schools and has kept his education current through correspondence courses in mining technology and business education, and through attendance at various university-sponsored development seminars.

Jan 1, 1971

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

By A. L. Jones

The subject assigned to me of "The Power" Problem of the Mine" is so broad that I have decided to confine myself to the question of the power supply itself, rather than the application of electricity throughout the property. We will look over certain economic aspects of the problem, particularly in the way it affects the mine manager or executive and his attitude toward the power plant. The accepted method of power application to the mine is by electric power, and the experience of each of you is that the job is never complete as you are always undertaking some further electrification which necessitates the stiffing up the power house to care for the additional load. The mine executive, then, is wrestling almost continuously with the problem of his power plant. Either it is overloaded and must be enlarged and rebuilt; or its operating costs are excessive; or it breaks down and limits coal output; or some one wants to sell new and improved machinery, until the manager almost hates the thought of such a restless part of his property. If he purchases power, every day new uses for it seems to be found. In many ways this unrest is due to short-sighted policy toward the problem, and the tendency when the problem of extension has to be met, to dispose of it in the cheapest way and without thought as to where the future is leading. The day when each opening had its own boiler plant, steam hoist, steam driven fans, steam pumps, steam loaders, etc., seems to be far behind us. The recognized method of power distribution today is by electric power, except for rather limited applications of compressed air; most of which is electrically compressed. During fifteen years contact with mines of Colorado and Wyoming the writer has seen nearly every mine power house double or triple in capacity or abandoned in favor of purchased power, worn. out and inefficient machinery thrown out, isolated boiler plants dropped, seam pumping at great depth changed to electric drive, all resulting in greatly reduced labor and fuel costs. Power costs, which in such isolated plants were considered normal, would be unthinkable today. One property where the main power supply was by compressed air from steam driven com¬pressors used under boilers 8.35 per cent of all the coal mined. The cost of power was 12 1/2 cents per ton of coal mined. Another property of four openings, each with its own boiler plant and usual equipment of hoists, pumps, etc., had a power cost of 10.3 cents for each ton mined; and these were days when you did not get very high prices for coal. Another property operating two mines mostly by steam used 11.1 per cent of the coal output under their own boilers and the power cost was 19.45 cents for each ton mined. Each of these properties is now electrified and power costs are from 3 to 4 cents per ton, and the fuel burned runs from 1 to 2 per cent of the output. With the broadening market and high prices for slack coal and the high prices for labor in boiler and engine rooms, the cost of steam is reaching a high figure, and efforts must be made to keep this down, by more efficient steam production and by utilizing this steam in better machinery which will increase the work done by each pound of steam. It must not be overlooked either, that the plant which is very wasteful of fuel is usually a pretty old one and one far from reliable. In a general way the more efficient the plant, the greater its reliability. Ample and reliable power supply means ability to get out coal when there is a market. The increasing use of purchased power is largely due to changing conditions which are tending constantly to push up the cost of power, unless the most efficient machinery is used and large scale production possible. The

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1942

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: We have with us a gentleman from Utah, who is familiarly known -as the "Mudite King," Mr. Reid, of the Lion Coal Company. Here is a letter I would like to read, and probably Mr. Reid will give us an idea of his Mudite machine, or the results he is obtaining. This question was brought up in Rock Springs, Wyoming, but Mr. Reid was not there personally during the discussion, but Mr. Burnell, who is general superintendent of the Lion Coal Com¬pany, as much as he possibly could, described the system and its effects. I believe Mr. Reid will probably be able to give a somewhat clearer statement this afternoon. This letter is from the Coal Mining Inspector of the State of Utah, John Crawford. "February 10, 1925. "The Industrial Commission of Utah, Building. "Statement of John Crawford, Coal Mine Inspector, in regard to Muditing in Coal Mines: "That Muditing used in connection with our present sprinkling system in coal mines is the missing link to the system we have had heretofore, because the water applied by the former system began to dry out, in heavy air currents, the moment it was put on. Consequently the dust that had been humidified by sprinkling, came back to its natural condition, and if anything, the combustible parts of it, in my opinion, were more intensified than previous to being wetted down. "The advantages that Muditing has over the old system of sprinkling are: "1st. The dust that is on the roof, timbers and sides of the entry is washed completely off and rolled up in the Mudite solution which entirely destroys the wings, crudely speaking, of the fine coal dust. "2nd. Sprinkling with the Mudite system, the water and mud is of greater extent than could be applied with a hand hose by a sprinkler. This sprinkling can be done while the mine is in operation, just the same as if water alone was being used. "3rd. The Mudite solution, when dried out, leaves a coating which serves as an armour to the coal, so that in the event of a local explosion, the inflammable matter on the coal is non-combustible; whereas, if that same coal had been sprinkled with water only, and made free of dust, the heat would have the same effect on the coal as it has on a stove when coal is thrown into it-instantaneous combustion. "Therefore, it is my opinion that the Mudite system is the missing link to the perfecting of our sprinkling system here in Utah. "(Signed) JOHN CRAWFORD." Mr. Reid has with him a few sam¬ples of his Mudite, after it has become solidified, taken from the floor, as I understand it. It is interesting. We have a few minutes to spare to good advantage, were we to ask Mr. Reid to give us an idea of his machine, as briefly as he possibly can, and also what he thinks the effect of the Mudite is compared to dry rock dust. Mr. Reid. (Applause.) MR. W. J. REID (Lion Coal Company) : I came down here with no intention of making any talk on Mudite. However, there being so many people that have seen Mudite at Wattis

Jan 1, 1925

of our good friends and fellow -members: J. R. Gemmill J. J. Walsh J. F. Gieble M. O. Danford John E. Havens J. E. Edgeworth R. S. Rubincam Phil Lloyd E. J. Raddatz who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1934

Jan 1, 1961

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

it may be clearly seen that one of the most rapidly increasing items in mining operations is the cost of the timber alone, to say nothing of the cost of installation. Consequently, any practical means that may be used to lengthen the life of mine timber will greatly tend to decrease mining costs and result in important economies in operation. The four principal agents by which mine timbers are destroyed are, decay, insect attack, fire and mechanical abrasion. Decay and insect attack are credited with more than 50 per cent of the total amount of timber destroyed in the mines. Numerous methods may be used to conserve mine timbers, such as better selection, preparation, storage and segregation. It frequently happens that good timber goes into places where poor timber would do as well, and timber of inferior quality is sent into places where only the best grade should be used. However, the most effective method of conservation is by treatment with some standard preservative to prevent decay. Some of. the benefits to be noted from the use of preserved timbers are; the reduction in operating costs by decrease in timber purchases; cuts down interference with mining operations due to timber failures on main haulageways; prevents excessive falling of roof in entries by maintaining timber in sound condition; conserves timber supplies and makes possible the utilization of inferior woods; reduces the danger of mine accidents; improves mine ventilation; lessens fire hazard. Our experience thus far with preservatives, while not of a sufficient period of time to establish just what length of life we may obtain from timber so treated, results obtained during the past four years indicate that the intelligent use of preservatives will effect sufficient economies in mine timber costs to justify the expenditures made for this purpose. MR. BAKER (Concluding): Now, if there are any questions you gentlemen would like to ask about our particular operations, I will attempt to answer them. J. H. EMRICK (Sullivan Machinery Company, Denver, Colo.) ; I was wondering how much penetration you get. MR. BAKER: We get between one-sixteenth and one-eighth of an inch; it is a dipping process. With pressure treatment you get-a greater absorption; that is, better than one-sixteenth of an inch. As long as there is no mechanical abrasion, it seems to serve the purpose. MR. EMRICK: Does that apply to the condition of the timber before it is treated? If it is perfectly dry, will it absorb more treatment than if it is partly green? MR. BAKER: Certainly; one of the things we do is to have it thoroughly seasoned before it is put into the preservative. We put some green timber into the mine once, and the fungus went after it right away. MR. EMRICK: What was the difference in the depth reached by the preservative? MR. BAKER: It hardly penetrated at all when it was green. It has to be sound and well seasoned. MR. EMRICK: How long was the timber dipped or treated? MR. BAKER: According to the seasoning. If it was well seasoned, it was left in the hot bath for an hour; if not so well seasoned, it was left for about a couple of hours. C. M. BILLINGTON (General Superintendent, Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, Lafayette, Colo.): Have you found it necessary to treat timber that has been charred? MR. BAKER: No. However, I suppose it has the sane effect; in lots of places they char timber for the purpose of treatment. MR. BILLINGTON: Have you ever tried lime and salt? MR. BAKER: No, this is the only thing we have tried, the creosote and the Aczol; the Aczol is a foreign product. WM. LITTLEJOHN: Which I is preferable, the Aczol or the creosote? MR. BAKER: I couldn't say as to that. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you had any tests as to the value of either? MR. BAKER: We have had some of the Aczol timbers in service for a little over four years; we have had some creosote timbers in service

Jan 1, 1926

[Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel Corp., 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 Coal Mine Inspector, Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver 2, Colo. Anderson, Merlynn D U.S. Fuel, P.O. Box 5022, Dragerton, Utah Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Ankeny, Marling J 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, 1959

[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

The 81 st Regular Meeting and convention was called to order by the President, Charles W. Margolf at 9:00 a.m. Monday, July l, 1985 in the Silverton Room of Tamarron, a resort hotel near Durango, Colorado. President Margolf welcomed the members and others in attendance to the convention and noted his theme of "Make It Happen!" He introduced those present of the 1985-86 Board of Directors and Officers who were elected by the Board of Directors at their Annual Meeting June 29. They were: Arthur K. Neill, President; Bernard Bernstrom, President-Elect; Loren V. Linville, Convention Liaison Officer; Vice Presidents Douglas J. Hammer of Colorado, C. Joe Presley of Montana, Alva L. Smith of New Mexico, Fred Wertz of North Dakota, Rex Berry of Utah and Thomas J. Lien of Wyoming; and Doris G. Finnie, Executive Secretary & Treasurer. He also introduced Ira. E. McKeever who was elected to serve as chairman of the Advisory Board by that group. Margolf mentioned that one three-year term as a Director would be voted upon at the annual business meeting which would be held Tuesday, July 2 at 1:30 p.m. in the Windom Peak Room and introduced James "Doug" Ingram, the nominee of the Nominating Committee. A convention update was made by the Conven-

Jan 1, 1985

Jan 1, 1989

[ ]

Jan 1, 1989

Jan 1, 2005

By John H. Emrick

At the meetings of this Institute held two years ago, there was presented a very comprehensive paper on the subject of shearing coal. It was well prepared and contained data based upon actual test and experiment. The conclusions reached showed that where the shearing cuts and tests were made and conducted [ ] there was no advantage but a disadvantage from having sheared the coal. In presenting my ideas on the subject of this paper to you, I do not mean to take issue with the author who addressed you two years ago but only to report the advantages which have recently been secured from shearing coal. All of this goes to prove again the well known fact that what one mine's conditions will permit another's will not. A number of years ago, when most of the coal produced was shot from the solid and when the "good, old" pick miner?s pay was based on the amount of lump coal he loaded out of his room, he was frequently seen putting in a vertical cut in the face as deep as he could do so with his pick. This man was the best ac- [ ] quainted with the peculiarities of the coal and, no doubt, saw that his pocketbook would be fattened more if he put forth the extra effort to make this vertical cut. Fortunately he was well repaid, and his employer loo, on account of the greater percentage of lump produced. Coal cutting machines of various types were then introduced to help along still more the cause of lump coal and, since the natural way to

Jan 1, 1926

[Page Minutes 5 Low Temperature Distillation and Briquetting 8 F. C. Miller. Discussion of Mr. Miller's Paper 11 Track Bonding 15 D. C. McKeehan. Discussion of Mr. McKeehan's Paper 16 Report of Safety Committee 19 Wm. Littlejohn 19 P. F. Patterson and G. A. Knox 20 D. Harrington, J. C. Roberts and Jas Dalrymple 22 Discussion of Report of Safety Committee 27]

Jan 1, 1923