Search Documents

Jan 1, 1990

Jan 1, 2005

By W. T. Ferguson

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It seems particularly appropriate that we come at this time to make a report on a phase of mechanical, mining of coal which had its birth in this region and was cradled and nurtured here until it assumed a lusty manhood that has made its presence felt in every coal field in this country and in foreign fields as well. More than twenty years ago shaker conveyors were introduced into the states covered by your Institute, and immediately, forward looking men saw that here were possibilities for the operator's dream of a continuous flow of coal from face to tipple, if this latest device could be made self-loading. The skill and ingenuity of men in the Rock Springs district quickly brought this about and in but a few short years .more coal was being loaded by Duckbills in this field than by any other means. Not content with this outstanding success, still other men dreamed of having this same Duckbill moved across the face under its own power, and so this same district produced the first power swing Duckbill.

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1965

John Chrystal Richard R. Fenner G. D. Grayer Albert M. Keenan C. E. Osborn Stanley C. Shubart George Sumers Cal Witmer Death is not the end, but the beginning, Not the surrender of life, but of earth Not a time for tears ... but faith.

Jan 1, 1982

By M. H. Forester

The Bituminous Coal Industry has for the past year been faced with a most serious problem. I am sure that you have had your own individual and local problems, as do we all. In my thirty years of practical experience with coal mining, I have never found an operating man nor a coal mine without problems. The very nature of mining, with so many unknown factors involved, precludes the absence of problems. But they are not insurmountable, and one should not dwell on them interminably. They should be recognized as a challenge to our ability and ingenuity to solve them, and once the proper solution is found, it should be applied and the problem dismissed. However, we find ourselves at the moment in the midst of a serious challenge to our very existence. In the early thirties, many in the industry welcomed the re-establishment of Unionism as a balance wheel, in the belief that the stabilization of wage scales would also stabilize prices and eliminate disastrous price cutting practices. The ultimate effects of having twenty-six years of benevolent paternalism in the administrative branches of Federal and State Governments with their labor courting policies, could hardly have been anticipated. And so with wages spiralling under government sponsorship, we have finally reached the point where competitive fuels, such as natural gas and oil are more attractive to the consumer, from the economic angle of cents per BTU cost, than coal.

Jan 1, 1953

Our next speaker this afternoon is a good friend of mine of some years. I must introduce him by way of a little story. Now Harris Sherman, many of you know because he was really in charge of everything to do with the mining industry in the State of Colorado for a good many years. Some of you may know that before he became part of Governor, Lamm's first cabinet as Director of Department of Natural Resources, he was an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund and that caused me considerable panic as I think it might have caused some of you. I have observed Hams from the time he stepped into that office until he retired from that office to go into private practice as the senior partner of Arnold & Porter's Denver office, one of the , nation's most prestigious law firms. Hams is a Colorado native. He's lived here all of his life. He's a graduate of Columbia Law School for his law degree and a graduate of Colorado College down at the Springs for his BA. He has served in state government, but I thought it might be appropriate, since he is no longer in state government, if we used Harris, today, to tell us from a former state official's perspective what the image is of the coal industry from the seat he held in Governor Lamm's cabinet for a good many years. He has been the recipient of a number of honors that I think you should know about including Phi Beta Kappa and

Jan 1, 1982

Salt Lake City will hold the Winter Meeting the last week in February or the first week in March. An unusually good program, both technical and social, is being arranged.

Jan 1, 1928

I have sketches of the radiators, and on this sketch up in here (indicating) we show the line from the fan-exhaust steam from the fan, and the trip spray at the mouth of the mine, which is usually near the tipple, the set of radiators on each side of the entry, exhaust steam exhausting in by the radiators, the small atomizers which I mentioned, and the man sprinkling at the hose. There are times, when at different times we have a man sprinkling during the day time, when he is out of the way, and during the night, sprinkling on the motor roads. I will leave that print up here and let you look at it and if you have any questions you wish answered, Mr. McAllister and myself will be glad to answer them. (Applause.) PRESIDENT PRYDE: . I am going to ask Mr. Hair to leave the sketch on the wall. From the back part of the hall, it is hard to see what is there. The figures are very important. I think one member of this association will be glad to know the cost of water, Friend Littlejohn. MR. LITTLEJOHN: I don't know as I want to ask any questions. The only thing I' would say about the cost there, it is very close to that cost that we tabulated for the Utah Fuel Company at the Utah mines here some time ago. We have not tabulated lately. It may be a little over that at the present time if you take the. labor costs and the material. costs. As I remember, some time ago we did get up some figures and it was, as near as I can remember, exactly two cents per, ton for the labor and material. We haven't got the radiators, etc., that the C. F. & I. have in their mines there, probably due to the fact that we have no shortage of water. We have plenty of that there, and our system is absolutely nothing more nor less than pipe lines, hose and nozzles and the man at the end of the nozzle. PRESIDENT PRYDE: I would like to ask Mr. Hair about the cost of the steam. MR. HAIR: That steam we use there in exhausting, of course, is from the fan, and we have a back pressure valve set right here (indicating), from three to four and sometimes five pounds, and the exhaust from the fan was a five or six inch exhaust, and our exhaust into the mine is nothing less than eight inches, and is practically low back pressure you might say, and all those large radiators, that I spoke of, are heated by live steam, and these probably take a little more coal, but as to just what that cost is I couldn't say. As far as the exhaust steam is concerned, you might as well use it in the mine as discharge it outside. MR. HARRINGTON: Mr. Hair, I would like to ask, is this installation on an intake haulage-main haulage course? MR. HAIR: Yes, sir. MR. HARRINGTON: In the winter time, when it is, say between five or ten degrees below zero, how far into that haulage road does the fogging go? MR. HAIR: Well, that goes in half a mile, sometimes in 3,000 feet. MR. HARRINGTON: Wouldn't that interfere pretty seriously with the motor? MR. HAIR: To some extent, but I wouldn't say seriously enough to interefere with the production of coal. We have one mine we are working in two and three-quarters miles. Our mines are all pretty deep, and we don't find it objectionable. I don't believe that it interferes in the production of coal. I don't believe it makes any more difference between a real cold day in winter time than it does in the summer time. MR. HARRINGTON: I was down at Dawson, and in their mines they have an installation very much like Mr. Hair describes, but we went in there one night and stayed all night, getting a certain amount of data, and the fog was intense for-a full half mile; so intense that you could hardly see your hand in front of your face-see your hand that far (indicating) dis-

Jan 1, 1924

By C. A. Allen

When the writers were asked to prepare a paper on this subject for this meeting of the Institute there was some question in our minds as to what to say that would be of interest to the members. You all know that Utah has some wonderful seams of good coal, on which have been opened some of the most modern mines in the United States, and that her coal operators have been putting forth many efforts to reduce losses due to accidents as well as disease. While I believe that the physical condition of Utah's mines is as good as in any other state we are not unaware of the fact that a great deal can still be done and we are always willing to frankly discuss the accident situation in the state. Dr. Murray has assembled some interesting figures showing the monetary loss due to accidents and disease which I will will proceed to give you to show the necessity of continued efforts in welfare work regardless of humane considerations.

Jan 1, 1922

of our good friends and fellow members: James Dalrymple, Sr. R. M. Perry A. E. Oliver R. M. Harding C. L. Oliver Arthur S. White Arthur N. Fancher A. E. Lindrooth D. A. Stout Clayton Morrison Frank O'Ryan Charles Billington who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1935

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

Dear Member: The Proceedings for the Institute for the past year are enclosed. We hope you will read them, for there are some good ideas expressed, and the papers are far above the average. The job of publishing the Proceedings has always worried the Secretary. The Secretary, being at the same time the Treasurer, has to pay the bills, and this time he enlisted the co-operation of some of our friends. You will find this co-operation shown in the ads in the proceedings. Read the ads just as carefully, even more so, than you do the text. They carry messages from our friends. Don't forget the winter meeting in Denver, the last of February, the 26, 27 and 28. Another good paper to be read then will be that of A. L. Jones on the subject of "Power Problems of the Coal Mine." In the meantime you can do two things for the Secretary. Let the few who haven't paid their dues remit quickly so we can get our books closed. Also, when you know of a changed address of any of the Institute members, drop the Secretary a line. so he can keep the mailing list straight Very truly yours, THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN COAL MINING INSTITUTE By [ ] Sec?y-Treas. BS AHH

Jan 1, 1922

PRESIDENT WHITESIDE: The chair will now throw the meeting open to discussion. GEO. B. PRYDE: In the old days at Rock Springs we had electric plants situated about half a mile from our mines; we had small boiler plants; we had an electric plant with about 600 kilowatt capacity. About ten years ago we discarded the old steam plants and started building towards a centralized power plant. We now have three 2,500-kilowatt turbine generators and one 1,000, and our peak load is about 7,000 kilowatts. We have had to rebuild the old power plant, scrap the old machines, and install water tube boilers. We did this as a matter of economy in a small local plant we had years ago, and it has grown to be a large central plant, supplying power for about 20,000 tons of coal daily, and distributing this power within a radius of twenty miles. We have found this method of power to be more economical than with the old plants, and the people who buy power from us in the Rock Springs field say it has been to their advantage also. We found this last year, when we had to shut down for five months, that that plant was the only plant operating in the Rock Springs field, supplying all the power, running of fans and pumping during the time the mines were shut down, and it helped the situation very much. We had an old wooden building which we had to tear down, raise the walls, and put on a steel roof; had to rebuild the boiler room and rebuild the boilers. The water situation at Rock Springs has never been very good; we get our water from wells 250 to 500 feet deep, and use one and one-quarter million gallons a week. We have two large spray ponds and we have gotten along well. There isn't any comparison between the central power station and the old method of making power. (Applause.) FRANK YOUNG: I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the paper just read, and it struck me it was remarkable how a paper prepared by anyone could be so nearly identical and coincide so very near with the experience of another. It is just like some work I have had. I had the engineering part to do for the power plant for ten years, and I think at that time we did all of the things that he mentioned in his paper. Also his analysis of the cost of power seems to me exactly right. If I had gathered the figures and made the statement myself I think it would have been very much the same as was read. The recommendation that it is better to buy

Jan 1, 1923

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

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 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

[Following is the Financial Report of the Treasurer from May 22, 1981 to May 21, 1982: RECEIPTS Cash on hand May 22, 1981 $21,815.81 Dues $ 6,800.00 Registrations 19,250.00 Banquet, luncheons, Buffet and Steak Fry Tickets $44,335.00 Less adjustment 831.68 43,503.32 Bank Interest and Certificate Interest 7,747.49 77,300.81 $99,116.62 DISBURSEMENTS Convention Expense - 1981 48,600.37 Convention Expense - 1982 2,146.65 Stamps & Stamped Envelopes 1,251.48 Stationery & Office Expense 1,259.22 Salary of Secretary-Treasurer 5,040.18 Social Security & Employment Tax 772.20 Proceedings $ 9,703.42 Less Advertising 2,290.00 7,413.42 Certificate Purchase 10,000.00 76,483.52 Cash on hand May 21, 1982 22,633.10 United Bank of Denver Savings Account 15,000.00 Money Market Certificates 40,000.00 Total Assets $77,633.10 AUGUSTA WHITESIDE Secretary-Treasurer Approved by Auditing Committee: Paul Hronich, Chairman Robert Anderson Allen E. Duncan Donald P. Huckeby Richard C. Mullins June 29, 1982]

Jan 1, 1982

The third session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Edward G. Fox, President of the Bitumious Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., at 9:M A.M. He stated he had enjoyed being present at the Institute the past two years, and was honored to be asked to preside at this morning's session. Mr. Fox introduced Cloyd M. "DOC" Smith, Vice President of World Mining Consultants, Inc., Washington, D. C., whose talk, "World Trade in Coal" was illustrated with a number of graphs. (See Index.) M. E. "Shorty" Wade, Assistant Purchasing Agent, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana, California, was introduced and gave a paper on "What Is Required to Realize Profits Through Purchasing." (See Index.) Mr. Fox suggested that all members take an active part in their association. He stated that much more can be done in association work than as a lone wolf. He urged all to support their organization and stay with it. It is for each member's good and not for the good of a few. Carl G. Schilbe, District Manager, Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Ohio, was introduced, and he presented a paper on "Results of a Study in Belt Idler Design -The Perma-Seal Idler." This paper was illustrated with a number of slides. (See Index.) "Operation of A-C Mines," was the topic covered by W. C. Painter, Service Engineer, Joy Manufacturing Company, Price, Utah. (See Index.) Each of the papers was well received, and presented a number of things valuable to all who heard them. Mr. Fox then turned the meeting back to President von Storch who read several announcements of committee meetings, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 A.M. for an afternoon of recreation before the banquet and dance that evening.

Jan 1, 1958

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995