Search Documents

Jan 1, 1961

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you any maximum length that you make your dust barriers? What I mean by that is, your entries are 10 feet wide, and I believe if I remember right, in your single track entries you had only one dust barrier to cover the full width of the. entry in your double track entries, I believe you had two-I would like to know, have you any maximum length you make these barriers? MR. CHAS. LEGER, ROYAL FUEL CO., UTAH: It is stated that they shouldn't be over 8 feet long to obtain sensitiveness. If they make them over 8 feet they are not as sensitive as they should be. They should be made short for two reasons in order to keep the sagging out and to make them as sensitive as possible. MR. DAN HARRINGTON, U. S. BUREAU OF MINES: I didn't come here to enter into any extended discussion on rock dusting or to discuss in particular the situation at Dawson. At the February meeting at Denver, we made a complete study of this matter. Since that time a report was completed and reported to the Phelps-Dodge Corporation and Mr. Moorhead probably has a copy of it, which can give you more complete information as to what we found. We found that with the adobe dusting that they have done, they had six miles of entry pretty thoroughly dusted and of all the samples we took, at least 95 percent of them showed that not only the floor but the ribs and roof were in such a condition that an explosion could not originate in any part of this entry. In other words, this entry as it was dusted was absolutely protected from ignition and propagation. The adobe they used was of material that was non-combustible. In most instances there was not more than 3 per cent of moisture in it.

Jan 1, 1924

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

The 66th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Opticon Theatre, Snowmass-at-Aspen, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President, Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Shubart welcomed the guests and was pleased at the large attendance, in view of the fact, that the site for the convention had to be changed at the last minute from the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park to Snowmass-at-Aspen. He stated that Joe Ward, our General Chairman, could not be present due to the serious illness of his wife, Thelma. He called on Bob Wilson, Chairman of the Registration and Hotel Committee, to give his report on applicants for membership since the last meeting. Mr. Wilson stated that there were 89 applicants and 242 registrations, an all-time record. A list of new members follows.

Jan 1, 1970

Jan 1, 1984

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

Past President Robert L. Hair, General Superintendent, Coal Mines, Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. "I will now call the Fifty-Third Regular Meeting of the Institute to order this morning and welcome the members and the guests. I'm on the program to introduce John Peperakis, President of the Institute for this year. I regret to announce that Mr. Peperakis received word this morning of an emergency at his mine and left to attend to this. We hope it is of a minor nature and he will return. (Editor's Note: Please refer to the index for printed text of the President's address which he had intended delivering, had he not been called away.) However, in the meantime, Robert von Storch has graciously consented to act as president until John Peperakis returns. "I needn't tell you who he is. Robert M. von Storch is General Superintendent of Coal Mines and Quarries, Columbia-Geneva Steel Division, United States Steel Corporation, Columbia, Utah. I now present Bob von Storch." Mr. von Storch: "As most of you know, the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cannot compare to the Mining Congress, as it is not a professional organization. It represents the coal operators in New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Montana and Wyoming. We have a group of volunteers to put this together and use this occasion to get together and exchange ideas.

Jan 1, 1957

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

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

The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Mr. John Peperakis, President Dear Mr. Peperokis: Following is the report of the Treasurer from May 19, 1956 to May 3 1, 1957: RECEIPTS [Cash on hand May 19, 1956. ................................... $2,209.64 Dues ........................................ $ 810.00 Registrations, Banquet, Tickets, etc. 1,992.75 Contributions ................... ............ 1,490.00 Interest .................................... 27.60 4,320.35 $6,529.99]

Jan 1, 1957

Jan 1, 1960

MR. D. HARRINGTON (U. S. Bureau of Mines) : I happen to be a member of the Safety Committee, and the men on the Committee, I believe are the ones who will find the most fault with the report; but I am absolutely not in accord with the last recommendation. (The use of the "Self-Rescuer.") I do not think it safe. I do not think you are always sure you are going to have a sufficient amount of oxygen; in fact I know there are occasions in mines when there is not enough oxygen to make a man safe in a gas mask or self rescuer. At one mine fire, workers using open oil and carbide lights experienced quick reversal of air which extinguished the lights and one of the workers having carbide light was overcome. It took about 45 minutes hard work with Sylvester method of artificial respiration to restore him to consciousness. Fortunately these men were working close to fresh air but had they been far from fresh air base and relying upon self-rescuers or gas masks they would undoubtedly have perished. I was at a mine fire in Wyoming. A bunch of men were working and the air turned on them, and if they hadn't oxygen breathing mine rescuing apparatus I think there would have been at least a half dozen men killed they would have been killed before you could say, "Jack Robinson." PRESIDENT PRYDE: I would like to ask if the self-rescuers are nut approved by the Bureau of Mines? MR. HARRINGTON: They are not; absolutely not.* Furthermore, the Bureau of Mines' Engineers have opportunities to go around in mines, and in mine cars as much as anybody else in the country, and I have in mind but one who is in the slightest degree in favor of allowing self-rescuers to go in a mine. MR. BEVAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Safety Committee if it would be of any use to the fire boss traveling through the mine? PRESIDENT PRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I think we should finish up the discussion on the self-rescuer before we take up any other discussions.

Jan 1, 1924

By James J. Bryja

The production capabilities of today?s longwall systems have resulted in significant increases in retreat rates. This has in turn resulted in a heightened demand on panel development rates to assure that subsequent panels are completed in time to avoid a longwall production outage. As a means of reducing the pressure on the panel development activity a trend has developed towards the use of wider face lengths. The aim of using a wider face is to reduce the longwall retreat rate without sacrificing productivity and thereby reduce the pressure on increasing panel development rates. However, as the face width increases so too does the number of hydraulically powered roof supports that are required to control the longwall face roof. This increase in the number of units inherently translates into increases in the level of required maintenance relative to the multitude of mechanical and hydraulic components, and an increase in the time required for tear-down and installation time during the moves between panels. An obvious method of mitigating the maintenance and move-time impacts of wider faces is to employ the use of individual roof supports having a wider center-to-center spacing. This practice would serve to minimize the number of roof supports and maximize the time availability for longwall face production. With this target in mind a joint research project with DBT was initiated in 1998 to study the feasibility of using 2 m wide shields to replace the then standard 1.75 m wide shields. After four years of comprehensive work, the technical team from DBT and RAG American Coal completed the design and development of a prototype shield that would later become part of the world?s widest longwall face employing the use of shields having a spacing of +2 meters. The final spacing of the shields actually became 2.058m in order to match the standard pitch of the rack bar shearer haulage elements on the conveyor. In July 2002, the 2 m wide shields were successfully installed in LW-46 panel at RAG Cumberland mine in the U. S. The authors in this paper summarize the design considerations of and operational experiences with the world?s widest longwall face using +2 meter wide roof supports.

Jan 1, 2008

[Adams, Leonard E .................... 8 19 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Adams, V. H ............................. 422 E. San Miguel, Colorado Springs, Colo: Allen, Earl W ........................... 2636 S. Gilpin St., Denver 10, Colo. Allen, Thomas ......................... State Coal Mine Inspector, State Office Bldg., Denver, Colo. Ambler, J. B .............................. P. 0. Box 591, Denver, Colo. Andrew, William . Boulder Valley Coal Co., Louisville, Colo. Apperson, A. B. .................... Brown Hotel, Denver, Colo. Arnold, G. O. ........................ Dawson, New Mexico Audin, Abel .......................... Somerset, Colo. Audin, Clement, Jr ................... Paonia, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1947

Pictured on these pages are the six RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1985-86 year followed by a brief profile. Five of the winners were present as RMCMI guests at the June convention at Tamarron to receive their recognition plaques at the welcoming session held Monday, July I, 1985. In addition to the plaques, each winner will receive $500.00 to be used toward tuition in the coming academic year. Also, as this is a continuing award, the winners from the 1984-85 season, will also receive an additional $500.00 for tuition use in their senior years provided they have maintained a good academic standing. Criteria for these awards is (1) 'That the award be made in the spring to a sophomore student to be used toward tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U. S. citizen and a resident of the state involved. (3) That the recipient have good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in Western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member as well as firms, businesses and corporations. Checks payable to RMCMI Scholarship may be mailed to the RMCMI Office at 777 Nile Street in Golden, CO 80401. Profiles of the 1985 winners follow: [ ]BEVERLY MOON Colorado School of Mines Beverly is a resident of Greeley, Colorado. She maintains a 3.1 grade average at the Colorado School of Mines and was on the Dean's List in 1983. In addition she also appeared on the Academic Roll in 198 1 and 1984. She participates in the Society of Women Engineers, and this summer Beverly is working for North American Coal Corporation's Coteau Properties, outside of Beulah, North Dakota, as an Engineer's Assistant. [ ]DEE BRAY Montana College of Science and Technology Dee comes from a small ranch outside of Hall, Montana and is currently pursuing a degree in Mining Engineering at Montana Tech. This summer he is working for North American Coal where he was selected out of more than a dozen applicants for his position. As a side note, Dee's brother, Dean Bray, is also a Mining Engineer, a Montana Tech Grad, and works for Consol at the Glen Harold Mine in North Dakota.

Jan 1, 1985

Jan 1, 2009

The meeting was called to order by the President, Mr. B. J. Matteson, in Dining Room No. I of the Albany Hotel, at 10 a. in., with thirty members present. After an address of welcome by the President, the Convention proceeded to business. First on the program was the reading of the minutes of the' previous meeting, by" the Secretary.' There being no alterations or amendments they were approved as read. A motion was regularly moved and carried that the Secretary provide membership cards to be mailed, or presented, to the members upon payment of dues in lieu of the receipt which has heretofore been used since the organization of the Institute. Mr. R. A. McAllister then presented his paper, the subject, being: "Mine Haulage." Mr. Robert A. Marshall had prepared a paper upon the subject of "Efficiency in Shot Firing," but as he was unavoidably absent, it was read by Mr. Sam Andrews. At the conclusion of the reading of Mr. Marshall's paper, Mr. Andrews presented his own *paper: "Some Facts About Coal Mining." As Mr. George A. Brown was unable to be present, the President requested Mr. R. S. Morton to read his paper, subject: "Flexoid Tubing and Its Application to Coal Mines as a Means of Temporary Ventilation." There being no further business 'the meeting adjourned.

Jan 1, 1921

In the absence of. J. B. Marks, President, the meeting was called to order by George B. Pryde, Past President. After organization, the meeting was turned over to W. J. Reid, Vice-President for Utah. A moving picture, "The Story of Dynamite," was shown by the courtesy of the E. I. DuPont de Nemours Company. This provoked a great deal of discussion and many questions were asked A. E. Anderson, who described the paper. John M. Jennings read a description of the United States Fuel Company's new Hiawatha tipple, after which the meeting adjourned to Hiawatha for lunch and a visit to the tipple and outside workings of the Hiawatha mine. Thursday, August 27, 1925 Meeting called to order at 9:30 by Vice-President W. J. Reid. Papers were read on the subject of "Mechanical Loading," by A. W. Dickinson, 0. G. Sharrer, and the paper of Glen A. Knox was read by the Secretary. General Superintendent George A. Murphy, of the Spring Canyon Coal Company, read a description of their newly completed tipple. The meeting then adjourned for Spring Canyon where lunch was served, and the afternoon spent in viewing the new. tipple. At 8:00 p. m., D. Harrington read a paper on "Rock Dusting," L. C. Clare read a paper on "Mudite's Relation to Nature," and at 11 p. m. the meeting adjourned. Friday, August 28, 1925 Meeting called to order at 9:30 a. m. by Vice-President W. J. Reid. The discussion of preceding papers continued. Paper by Joseph Harrington on "Domestic Fuel Stokers" was read by the Secretary. The expected paper by Mayne Read was not presented as Mr. Read was unable to get to Price on account of railroad conditions. The papers on the "Theory of Spontaneous Combustion," by C. P. Crawford, were also omitted through an error of the Secretary, and particular attention is called to the publication of these two articles. The new tipple of the Columbia Steel Company was described by T. C. Harvey, after which the meeting adjourned for Columbia, where luncheon was served and the nine visited. After the visit to Columbia, the delegates were taken to the Sunnyside mine of the Utah Fuel Company, where an hour was spent. Upon motion, unanimously adopted, the Secretary was instructed to express the sincere appreciation of the delegates to the Price Chamber of Commerce, the Civic Association, the Price News-Advocate, Harry Keene, Harry Duberstein, John M. Jennings, Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, and Geo. A. Murphy of the Financial Committee, for the complete success in handling the meeting of the Institute. The report of the Membership Committee on the following was accepted: R. E. Birchard, Standardville, Utah. Dave Brown, Spring Canyon, Utah. William Burt, Hiawatha, Utah. A. J. Coats, Fort Collins, Colo. R. P. Fitch, Rains, Utah.

Jan 1, 1925