Search Documents

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of. Twentieth Meeting 9 "Cutter Bits"-J. H. Emrick 12 Discussion 16 Experiments in Roof Control-D. A. Stout 18 Discussion 28 Use of Permissible Powder in Coal Mining-H. Petersen 35 Discussion 38 Safety Measures-F. C. Miller 40 Automatic Mine Fan Signal-O. C.. Irwin 45 Discussion 46 The Operation of Gaseous Mines-Samuel Tescber 51 Discussion 55 "The Alamo Mine"-E. H. McCleary 60 Discussion 69 Mudite Discussion 71 The Mudite Machine-Ogden Iron Works Co 73 Reducing the Labor Turn-Over-Eugene McAuliffe 79 Coal vs. Oil Competition-Franklin P. Wood and Eugene Weber 81 Miscellaneous Discussion 86 New General Coal Mine Safety Orders of the State of Utah-B. W. Dyer 90 Discussion 93 Wednesday Afternoon Session 103 Comment on Utah Mining Law-Wm.Monay 104]

Jan 1, 1925

The Friday morning session of, the Forty-seventh Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called, to order in the junior Ballroom, Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, at 9:20 o'clock a. in., with Mr. Paul L. Shields presiding. CHAIRMAN SHIELDS: Let us get started, gentlemen. We are late now. From the looks of this agenda we are going to have a busy forenoon. The first item on this program is a talk on "The Second Underground. Gasification Experiment at Gorgas, Alabama," by Mr. James L. Elder.

Jan 1, 1951

President Robert E. Murray opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. He called on the Auditing Committee to give its report. Jack Leech read the report and asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. The Resolutions Committee was asked to present its report. Mr. J. F. Ratchye submitted the following: (1) RESOLVED. Whereas, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the Coal Mining industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: James L. Elder William T. Gibbs Julian E. Tobey John H. Plehn NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that there be spread upon the minutes of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute recognition of the passing of these members, who have so greatly contributed to the advancement of the industry, both nationally and in the Rocky Mountain area, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the next of kin as evidence of the sincere regard and sympathy of the members of the Institute. (2) RESOLVED: that in recognition of faithful service to the coal industry generally, and to this Institute, Life Membership in The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute be hereby con¬ferred upon the following members:

Jan 1, 1979

By Paul Schmechel

This time of year, our lawn is host to goodly numbers of birds - robins, English sparrows, finches of various flavors and some whose names I don't know. We lure them with a feeder in our backyard and I'm sure Patti and I spend several minutes a day watching them through a picture window that overlooks their coming and going. And, while the picture window supplies us with a constantly changing view, it does not treat our winged friends nearly so kindly. You see, at certain times of the day, reflections on our window feed back to our birds a mirror image of the backyard. Lifting off from the bird feeder, they see before them what is behind them. And, not infrequently they fly straight into the window. They stop abruptly, of course. It has to be quite a shock to discover that what is behind you is not the same as what is in front. At this point, I might be tempted to say something about bird brains - except for the fact that we humans also are prone to deceptive images thrown up by the past. Today, I think we hear a great many voices painting past images as they look to the future. We hear that the price of oil soon will rise to its former elevated position; the price of copper will bounce back; a hungry world soon will escalate the demand for food and our agricultural industry will be back in the black. In fact, we can hear hope from many voices telling us that our major resource-rich, basic industries are poised to fly up. I can hope that the voices are right, but I keep thinking that those expressions come from people seeing false images. Most certainly, it is more comfortable to see the past, rather than acknowledge that the world economy is being restructured and that the restructuring is affecting the Rocky Mountain states profoundly and negatively. The worst mistake we could make may be to place too much credence in the images from our past. We can be lulled into a dangerous complacency. What we need is a tighter belt and the will to do some serious bootstrapping. Before proceeding, I would make two points: First, it is not my intent to be a prophet of doom. But I do think we need some healthy doses of realism, if we are to avoid the shock of flying into a false future. Second, by now you have detected that I have choosen to diversify the assignment you handed me on utility diversification. As I proceed, you soon will see that the roots of diversification for many utilities lie in the subject that we ponder now. We could begin in many places, but let's start with energy. It is pervasive in our businesses and industries. We all use it. And, despite conventional economic wisdom, we are using less of it. The price is down, but we have not reverted to our profligate ways. That is true whether you look at the industrial customer or the residential consumer. As a nation and as a people, we have learned to do more work with less energy. A few statistics illustrated the point. If we use 1973 as the base year, energy use in the United States has declined almost I percent. If we examine the year of peak energy use, 1979, the decline approaches 7 percent. Let's look at it another way. In 1973, for every dollar of gross national product, the United States consumed 27,100 Btu of energy. Last year, 1985, the comparable figure was 20,700 Btu - a decline of 24 percent. So, not only are we using less energy, but we are using it more efficiently. Even though the price of energy has declined, we are unlikely to use substand with natural gas and petroleum consumption. Use of natural gas has dropped almost 21 percent since 1973. Petroleum consumption has declined 1 I percent since 1973 and almost 19 percent since 1978, when the U.S. used a record quantity of petroleum. We also know there's been no appreciable change in amounts of oil and gas used since 1981. We weathered both a sharp recession and a healthy recovery without altering the amount of those fuels used. That the use of oil and gas dropped sharply, while the total use of energy merely slumped a bit is easy to explain. The use of coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity from 1973 through 1985 increased almost 48 percent. Some people will tell you that the large decrease in the price of oil and gas will result in increased demand that will displace coal, nuclear and hydropower. In turn, demand will force the price of oil and gas upward. I doubt it. From the poking around I've done on the subject, I suspect there may be some short-term displacements, but they will be, for the most part, cancelled out by declining use among existing customers. For instance, we all know what has happened in the automotive sector. In 1973, the average U.S. automobile made 13.1 miles to the U.S. gallon of gasoline. In 1984, the most recent available statistic, the average auto made 16.94 miles to the gallon. That's a 19 percent improvement. Because annual miles driven per automobile are essentially unchanged over the period and the number of cars on the road is not increasing, we are witnessing a drop in this segment of the petroleum market. That trend will continue. Now, let's look at energy consumption patterns still another way. Between 1973 and 1985, consumption in the residential and commercial sectors of our economy increased total energy use by 11.2

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1974

Past President Ralph Moore opended the meeting at 9:30 a.m. He thanked all the committees for their part in making the 1977 meeting the success is was. He then turned the meeting over to President-elect, Shirl McArthur. President McArthur called on the Auditing Committee to present its report. Gabe Ishley, Chairman, read the report and asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. Loren Linville gave his report on registration and new members which figures are in the Monday a.m. business meeting of the Proceedings. The Resolutions Committee was asked to give its report. William Bear, Chairman, submitted the following: (1) RESOLVED: WHEREAS, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: John A. Garcia John B. Huehes H. B. Lindeman Richard B. Miller Charles Pliley Wilford Ruff James Westfield

Jan 1, 1977

By Steve Leer

Pick then introduced the convention keynote speaker, Steven Leer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Arch Coal. Following the morning coffee break, Pick introduced Howard Goodman to present the Fourth Annual Safety Awards. [ ]

Jan 1, 2001

Public perceptions about coal remain neutral to negative But gains are slowly being made as the public becomes more aware of coal as ?abundant, affordable, and increasingly clean?

Jan 1, 2006

By Dallas Grubbs

Agenda ?Growth Projections ?Economic Indicators ?Mining Equipment Growth ?Tire Supply ?Michelin Actions to Increase Capacity ?Michelin?s Challenges & Recommendations

Jan 1, 2006

By Bob Burnham

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

Jan 1, 2009

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 Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1957

By K. L. Marshall

A facetious title was purposely given this talk, so that a formal paper would not be expected. TWO or three days ago, while discussing with Mr. Dickinson some of the details of the dust explosion demonstrations we are planning for this coming Saturday, I remarked that we would like to have as many people as possible see some samples of 20 and 200 mesh dust, so they would more fully understand just what was causing the explosions. Mr. Dickinson requested that I bring samples and screens and in this informal manner, give you all a ".close-up" of coal dust which is considered in Explosion Hazard reports. While sampling mines, for road, rib, and roof dust, in connection with safety service and hazard reports which the Bureau of Mines Engineers make at the request of coal operators, I have often been assisted by under- ground mine officials or other men of many years experience and on almost every occasion, while we were carefully brushing the very fine dust from timbers or coal surfaces, they would make some remark such as: "never had noticed this kind of dust, didn't know it was here", or "well, that's the first time I really understood what all 'this dust talk was about." Such experience makes me believe that the much published terms, 20 mesh and 200 mesh are just numbers to the great majority of both miners and operators. We are now going to have lesson one in the primer of coal dust explosions and I want to say, in all sincerity that a complete course in the hazards of mining is deserving of a place in the curriculum of the best mining schools of this country. Sample No. 1 is fine coal and dust and is a fair sample of what can be found every where in rooms and entries of a mine, as it is too small to be gathered up with a shovel and is left in the ordinary mining at the faces and is spilled along the entries in haulage. In this you will see some quarter inch coal, much eighth and sixteenth inch coal, in fact those are the sizes I find many people have in mind when they are asked about the dust made in mining. Although the sizes mentioned are the ones which seem to almost entirely make up this sample, such is not the case, for from 10 to 20% of such a sample will usually pass this 20 mesh screen and in Sample No. 2 we have 20 mesh dust. Result of many tests, supports .the statement of the coal mining division of the Bureau, that it is quite probable that coal over 20 mesh does not take part in any but the most violent of explosions and that all dust under 20 mesh may take part in any explosion. The largest particles in this sample will not be over .03 inches in their largest dimension and a pound of dust to a foot of average heading is very easily found in most every mine I have visited and usually a great deal more can be readily gathered up. It was .found early that the finer the dust the more dangerous it was for a given coal. So for the early explosion tests conducted by the Bureau a commercial pulverizer was used and it turned out a 20 mesh dust of which about 75% would pass 200 mesh. Some men question whether the ordinary mining methods made such a dust and so doubted the explosibility of the dust in their own mines. The question was well taken, and hundreds of dust samples were taken by the field men of the Bureau to determine the kind of dust being made in all methods of mining and all classes of coal. The result of such sampling showed some coals. resisted breakage more than others and that actual mine road dust, through 20 mesh, would show from 10 to 20% through 200 mesh, and for actual rib and roof dust through 20 mesh, they would get from 20 to 40% of 200 mesh dust. In testing the

Jan 1, 1924

Mr. Robert Von Storch opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Von Storch: As a matter of fact, I am very much surprised to see many of these faces. The way you were acting last night I did not expect to see so many but you are evidently all right, and survived. This morning's session is the ?RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT? theme, and our first speaker- (and we made a little switch) - is Jack Huebler, Associate Director, Research Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Ill. The switch is because of a projector problem. Jack Huebler was born in Michigan and received degrees in Chemical Engineering and Mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He joined the Surface Combusion Corp. immediately and was with them for 20 years, rising to the head of research. He took leading roles in the invention and development of many heat using processes involving gas chemistry combustion and metallurgy. The now famous Erie Mining Taconite Pellet Process was one of these. He pioneered in gas carburizing and in the preparation and use of prepared atmospheres. He specialized in the heat transfer aspects of many new industrial metal heating processes. He left Surface 5 years ago to join IGT.

Jan 1, 1966

By David Griffiths

I am' not an orator and have never said a word in public during my thirty years' experience in the coal mines of Colorado; but, being requested to speak by our worthy chairman, and as I am deeply interested in the future welfare of this organization, I will make an effort to say a few words in behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal- Mining Institute, which we are about to organize. As I understand it, it is the object and intent of this organization not merely to assemble occasionally for the purpose of discussing various problems in coal-mining, and thus to obtain the best possible results in economic operations, but its especial duty will be to devise ways and means whereby accidents in coal mines will be minimized. Figuratively speaking, we are about to plant a tree in the State House of Colorado, and desire its roots and branches to extend over Wyoming on the north, New Mexico on the south, and Utah on the west. So we expect this tree to bear fruit over a vast area. .We must remember that the planting of a tree, even in good soil, is useless unless we cultivate, prune, and nurture its development. If we will not do so, the tree will not bear the desired fruit. So, in order to make the Rocky Mountain Institute a success, we must not only start it off in good shape, but we must keep on adding to its strength in various ways, so that it will become a known factor and a recognized power over this broad teritory. In other coal-mining states and countries of the world much has been accomplished through similar organizations to reduce loss of life among, men engaged in the production of coal, and there is no reason why our institute in the West should not be equally useful and attain the same results. There are many ways by which this organization can be made beneficial to the men engaged, in various capacities, in handling the "dusky diamond.' I will endeavor to confine my brief remarks to the necessity of a crusade of an educational nature among three classes of men that are directly and indirectly connected with coal mines. First-We need to educate ourselves. It is amazing how few of our number, holding positions of trust, and having charge of men in and around coal mines, are conversant with our brief mining laws and cognizant of our duties in enforcing them. Going down the line to our company men and miners, I think I can safely say that not over 5 per cent of them are in any way familiar with the statutes

Jan 1, 1913

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 3300 One Oliver Plaza, Pittsburgh, Pa. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club, Bldg., Denver, Colorado Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 S. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Amerman, Richard W Utah Cons. & Mining Co., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mexico Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., 848 N 3rd E, Price, Utah Anderson, John S. Utah Cons. & Mining Co., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1971

By James T. Bartis

Review of Key Issues Affecting the Prospects of CTL in the United States ?Issues of concern to the public - Impacts of coal mining - Water use - Greenhouse gas emissions ?Issues of concern to investors - CTL production costs - Oil prices - How greenhouse gas emissions will be managed ?RAND recommendations

Jan 1, 2009

Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co. Sundance Rt. Moorcroft, WY 82716 Charles R. Ahlbrecht Western States Surveying Inc. 7030 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 Dean Albon Monsanto Co. 800 No. Lindberg St. Louis, MO 631 67 Robert Anderson Mobil Oil Producing Inc. POB 17772 Denver, CO 8021 7 Stephen P. Antony Orbital Engineering 6789 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 David Ariotti Boyle Mining Engineering Service Rt. 1 Box 15M Helper. UT 84526 Douglas Auck Falkirk Mining Co. 103 McKinley Ave. Underwood, ND 58378 Roger Backrnan N. D. Crockett & Assoc. 3467 Sorenson Way Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Richard Bailey Continental Conveyor & Equip. Co. 602 Park Point Drive Golden, CO 80401 Earl W. Baker Baker & Co. 4965 Jackson St. Denver, CO 80216 Allen P. Barber San Juan Coal Co. 705 Ocio Farrnington, NM 87421 Edward Barker Process Equipment Builders POB 7506 Paducah, KY 42001 Larry Barton Carter Mining Co. 101 5 Teewinot Circle Gillette, WY 82716 Hugh Bastian American Carbide Corp. POB 2650 Ronald N. Batdorf Monsanto Co. Box 701 Saratoga, WY 82331 Georgetown, KY 40321 Doris A. Bauer Mobile Oil Corp. POB 17772 Denver, CO 80217 Jan Beam Blount International Ltd. 2570 So. Dayton Way #E-308 Denver, CO 80231 Mac Beaudry Falkirk Mining Co. 1029 Cannon Ln. Washburn, ND 58527 R. C. Beerbower Gates Engineering Co. Drawer A Beckley, WV 25801

Jan 1, 1982

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