Search Documents

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Is there any member that has any question to ask Mr. McCleary on the subject? MR. TESCHER: What do you figure it costs to do this? MR. McCLEARY: Between one and a half and one and three-quarters cents per kilowatt hour. MR. TESCHER: That includes all charges? MR. McCLEARY: All charges, fuel and labor. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Mr. McCleary, you were talking about a ten-inch top on the cars. Don't you find there is considerable spillage when raising or lowering the cars? MR. McCLEARY : Not after the men get accustomed to loading cars properly; at first, they just loaded it on in any old way, but wall it onto the cars solidly after a few days at the mine. I do not think we have that condition now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Did I understand from the paper there that the rock dust you are using contains 90 per cent silica? MR. McCLEARY: Twenty; less than twenty. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I got that figure wrong. Are there any other questions to ask? MR. SCHLOSS: I would like to know what kind of machinery Mr. McCleary is using for rock dusting and are they rock dusting the rooms, or not? MR. McCLEARY: We have only recently started rock dusting, and the machine that we are using is Mr. Tescher's machine. We start in at the face of the main entry and move against the air current rock dusting every room and the entry every 50 feet. Every 50 feet, we stop the machine fifteen or twenty minutes at that point and rock dust up in the room and around the entry at that point. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Do you do any water sprinkling at the faces-at the working face? MR. McCLEARY: Yes, sir, every working face is sprinkled every day, and at least every two days at all points in the mine. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Does it affect the rock dust in any way? MR. McCLEARY: That was true before we started rock dusting. The faces only are sprinkled now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where you stop to sprinkle with water, you do not figure on rock dusting? MR. McCLEARY: I will just change that around. Where we do rock dusting, we do not expect to sprinkle. Where the faces of the coal are fresh, from day to day, that is where the sprinkling will be clone. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: That is the fresh faces? MR. McCLEARY: Yes. I might add right here, I believe Mr. Tescher made the statement that cross-cuts up an 8 per cent pitch were the steepest that

Jan 1, 1925

The Wednesday morning session was opened by President Max Robb at 9:30 a.m. He thanked the various committees, speakers and all participants in making the 67th meeting a success. He called on David M. Lane, Chairman of the Auditing Committee, to give his report. He read the report and asked for a motion to approve it. Motion was made, seconded and approved. (See Treasurer's Report on page 5.) Walter E. Duncan, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, gave his report, which follows: RESOLVED: WHEREAS, since the last convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the Coal Mining Industry generally has suffered the loss through death of the services and fellowship of: Kenneth G. Eaton Frank Field C. M. McConnell George H. Smith Glen E. Sorensen Harry Tibbs Carl H. Zietz NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That this Institute does give recognition to the contribution of these outstanding men to the Coal Industry and to the programs and objectives of the Institute, in recognition of which a copy of this Resolution shall be included in the permanent minutes of the organization and transmitted to their respective families.

Jan 1, 1971

Jan 1, 1926

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

The 78th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hereafter referred to as RMCMI) convened at the Marriott's Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village in Vail, Colorado. The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by the President, Ira E. McKeever, Jr., who is President, Western Mining Operations, Natural Resources Group, W. R. Grace & Co. McKeever was introduced by Past President Edward F. Ziolkowski, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Energy Development Company in Hanna, Wyoming. MR. ZIOLKOWSKI: The first order of business this morning is to introduce the president and for a business meeting as well as other items on the program. It is my pleasure to introduce Ira McKeever to you this morning. Ira was born and raised in Kit Carson, Colorado, and served in the U.S. Navy prior to obtaining his geological engineering degree in 1952 from Colorado School of Mines in Golden. He then spent the next 20 years involved in mining sulphur, pot ash and coal with Texas Gulf Sulphur at that time and Gulf Resources Chemical Corporation. In 1972 he joined W. R. Grace & Co. as president of the Mining Division, Natural Resources Group. He was named Colowyo Coal Company's president and general manager in 1976 to develop what is currently Colorado's largest coal surface mining operation. Last year he became W. R. Grace's president of Western Mining Operations which is the position he presently holds. Ira is active in civic affairs; he is currently serving on the Colorado Energy Impact Assistance Advisory Committee. He is a member of the Colorado's Metropolitan Water Roundtable, he is also a director of Project Colorado, a member of the committee for the Colorado Division of Commerce and Industry. He has, in the past, served as chair- man of the Craig Hospital Board. In 1967 Ira was the recipient of the Colorado School of Mines van Diest Gold Medal Award, and in 1981 was given the individual service award for outstanding accomplishments in the field of health, promotion, physical fitness by Colorado's Governor's Council for the Health and Promotion of Physical Fitness. Memberships are also held in Denver Coal Club, the Colorado Mining Association, and the American Mining Congress. Will you please welcome Ira McKeever? I do have one other piece of business here. If you will all join with me, yesterday was Ira's birthday. I asked what year that was, but I couldn't get that out. So, I'm not going to lead the singing. Someone is going to lead the singing. But I think it would be appropriate if we did sing happy birthday this morning and I think it would also wake us up. How's that? All right, will you join me please? (A chorus of the Happy Birthday song followed.) President McKeever's address: MR. McKEEVER: The secret is that I'm double nickles. So I've got a few more years hopefully to be with you and this wonderful industry that we represent. Thank you Ed. I realize now more than ever, the tremendous effort that you put in the program last year and the magnitude of the job that is placed in the presidency of the Institute. It was indeed with tremulous hands that I undertook to lead the Institute this year, and I found a tremendous amount of strength and guidance in my friend Ed whom we've known since college days and worked together. On behalf of that lifetime of memories and good thoughts, Ed, I would like to present to you a little token of appreciation. 1 would like to join Ed in welcoming you all to Vail. Ed arranged the weather, 1 arranged the program along with Charlie Margolf. This is the 70th regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute; and in accepting the leadership a year ago, 1 obligated one very special person to fill the role of chairlady and hostess for this meeting. I would like to have you all, if you haven't already, meet my wife, Linda. I would like to thank her publicly for her guidance and help she continues to provide me. It's absolutely necessary that you also meet and recognize Charlie Margolf our program chairman who will be helping through the meeting to present and monitor our program; and anyone who knows Charlie knows the sincerity and dedication he brings to anything or any phase of life he touches. We will be seeing him in action this afternoon when he chairs the most interesting panel presentations. Don't miss it if you can help it. A couple of logistical comments. We will have to keep our meeting on schedule so that any of our non-agenda items that we need to keep, maybe we

Jan 1, 1982

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

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. Homer Hyatt, Safety Director, North American Coal Corporation, Western Division, Castle Gate, Utah. Mr. Hyatt introduced Mr. Richard F. Walker, Vice President, Engineer & Planning, Electric Department, Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Walker is a native of the State of Nebraska, a graduate of the University of Colorado with a BSEE degree in 1949. He has been associated with the Public Service Company of Colorado for almost twenty years and in the above capacity for the last one and one-half years. Mr. Walker?s subject was "Our New Plants and Coal. (See index for printed text of Mr. Walker's paper.) Mr. John F. O'Leary, Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. spoke on the ?High Cost of Economy.? Mr. O'Leary graduated from George Washington University in 1950 with a degree in Economics. In 1950, he joined the Bureau of Mines. In 1963 he was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mineral Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior. In 1967, he was appointed Chief, Bureau of Natural Gas, Federal Power Commission. In 1968, appointed Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.

Jan 1, 1969

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. George A. Nugent, Manager Mining Division, Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. The first speaker was Mr. Jack Huebler, Vice President Research, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Huebler joined IGT in 1961 as Director of IGT's contract research program, a major part of which is IGT's extensive coal gasification work. He is also an adjunct associate professor at Illinois Institute of Technology, teaching gas utilization. Before joining IGT, Mr. Huebler spent 20 years with Surface Combustion Corporation where he was chief research engineer. He developed, designed, and constructed a wide variety of heat processing equipment and the associated chemical processes and was involved in applied research in heat treating, gas chemistry, and gas-solids reactions. He has carried out extensive research on the heat treating of ferrous metals, oil gasification and gas combustion, and has made major contributions to the development, construction, and operation of large-scale industrial furnace equipment. He received B.S. degrees in 10th chemical engineering and mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He has 60 publications including 15 patents. He is also a world traveler in the field of engineering. Mr. Huebler's subject "Gasification of Western Coals." (See Index for printed text of Mr. Huebler's paper.)

Jan 1, 1972

The Tuesday Morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. E. C. DeMoss, Vice President, Utah Construction & Mining Company, San Francisco, California. Mr. DeMoss introduced Mr. C. Howard Hardesty, Jr., Senior Vice President, Con¬tinental Oil Company, New York, N. Y. Mr. Hardesty spoke on the "Relationship of Coal to Progress in Oil Industry." Mr. Hardesty was born in Fairmont, West Virginia, 1922. He is an attorney by profession; he attended Mercerburg Academy in 1939 and received a Bachelor of Science degree from Duke University, 1943. He then served three years in the U. S. Navy and returned in 1946 to obtain his LL.B. from West Virginia University in 1949. Mr. Hardesty has had an outstanding professional career which started as a partner of the law firm of Furbee & Hardesty, Fairmont, West Virginia. He subsequently was West Virginia's State Tax Commissioner and President of the West Virginia Bar Association. In 1963 lie became General Counsel of Consolidation Coal Co., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; in 1964 he was made Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Consolidation Coal. In 1966 he was elected Executive Vice President of Consol, and, shortly after it was merged with Continental Oil Co., he was made Senior Vice President of Continental. He is married to the former Doris Wilson; they have two children and reside in Greenwich, Connecticut.

Jan 1, 1968

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

The Tuesday morning session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was opened at 9:00 a.m. by Bob von Storch, in the absence of the President. Mr. von Storch appointed the following new members to the Resolution Committee in the absence of three of the members: Albert Keenan, E. S. O'Connor and Howard Crandell. This committee was asked to be ready to report at the Wednesday morning session. Mr. von Storch then introduced Lyman Fearn, State Mine Inspector for the State of Wyoming, who presided over the morning session. Mr. Fearn introduced the first speaker for the morning, Louis A. Engstrom, Engineer at Kemmerer Coal Company, Kemmerer, Wyoming, who delivered a talk illustrated with slides in the absence of Mike Zakotnik, Jr., who was unable to attend. (Please refer to the index for printed text of this paper.) The next paper, "New Horizons -Coal for the Steam Plants of the West," was delivered by Don Newberry, superintendent of the Castle Gate Mine of the Independent Coal and Coke Company, Castle Gate, Utah, in the absence of W. J. O'Connor. (Please refer to the index for printed text of this paper.) Bob von Storch then introduced Edward G. Fox, President of Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who delivered a paper on "A New Era in Labor Relations."

Jan 1, 1957

By E. H. McCleary

The Alamo Mine The Alamo mine is located about seventeen miles northwest of Walsenburg, Colorado, on the Loma Branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad, in the foothills of the Black Mountains of Huerfano County. Prospecting Mr. W. B. Lewis of New York City, president of the Oakdale Coal Company and also president of the Alamo Coal Company first became interested in this property in 1920. After all natural features of the surface had been carefully examined by Mr. Lewis, he was convinced that the property was underlaid with coal seams. Plans for prospect drilling were made at once and this drilling was started late in 1921. In all, eight drill holes were put down to the Trinidad sandstone which underlies the coal measures in this field. These drill holes in general, showed very satisfactory results. Two workable coal seams were penetrated by most of these drill holes, the upper seam being six and one half feet thick and the lower seam having a thickness of ten and one-half feet. The two seams are separated by forty feet of sandstone and shale. Analyses of the seams proved each to be of a very high grade bituminous coal possessing hardness much above other bituminous coals, and having very bright lustrous appearance. Tests of more than a year's duration proved the coal to store excellently in closed bins and also in open bins where coal is exposed to elements. The drill hole data further showed the coal seams to pitch more than fifty per cent or about twenty-six and one-half degrees. The pitch direction being approximately South 65 degrees East. The drill holes further proved the coal seams did not outcrop at any point on the property, and no evidence of coal outcrop has been found in near vicinity. A splitting and pinching out of seams was found to occur some two hundred to three hundred feet of theoretical outcrop at very Western boundary of property. The most Easterly or No. 6 drill hole has a depth of eight hundred fifty feet to floor of lower coal seam. The Trinidad sandstone was found to be immediately under the lower coal seam, and the Pierre shales lying under this sandstone. Plans for Development and Sinking Having obtained sufficient data, plans for development of the property were carefully made sometime in advance of the actual opening of the mine. Every condition was carefully studied and the maximum production of clean and well prepared coal at as low a cost as possible during the entire life of mine was kept uppermost in the minds of all. The life of mine is estimated at approximately fifty years. It was decided to open up the lower and thicker seam first, and due to the pitch and other conditions a slope opening was decided upon for its extraction. The pitch of the coal having been found to be from fifty to sixty per cent or twenty-six to thirty degrees, the plan of driving the slope directly down the pitch of seam was eliminated and a plan that would give a more economical grade was decided upon. To obtain a lesser grade, a point several hundred feet west of-and at a less elevation than the theoretical outcrop of coal seam was selected for the slope opening. (Fig. 18.) To have driven directly down the pitch of coal seam would also have given the slope an uneven grade as the pitch of coal seam varied as it approached the crop. From this point of opening, the slope was to be driven on a thirty-one per cent, or' about seventeen degree pitch to intersect coal seam in No. 6 drill hole, a distance through the Pierre shales and Trinidad sandstone of two thousand five hundred fifty feet, the slope to be driven practically due East

Jan 1, 1925

The 1933 meeting will be held in Denver in May or June, the exact date to be announced later. If you have any suggestions for the place or program, send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1932

By C. A. Allen

In presenting a summary of the uses of fine and pulverized coal the writer has borne in mind that we are not trying to determine what a combustion engineer should know but we are only trying to find out in what ways the consumption of slack can be stimulated. First discussing the use of powdered coal it can be stated that it has passed the first experimental stage but is still capable of much development and improvement. It has already found successful application in stationary and locomotive boilers, cement kilns, calcining furnaces, reverberatory smelting furnaces and many other types of furnaces, such as open hearth furnaces and annealing furnaces. For stationary boilers it seems to have been thoroughly demonstrated that powdered coal is more efficient than stoker installations. Over-all efficiences of boiler and furnace in stoker installations of the best type run from 70 to 76 per cent; whereas the efficiency of powdered coal installations averages slightly over 80 per cent. However, due to the increased cost of pulverized coal, the increased efficiency of these installations over stokers, from a money stand-point, will not be more than 1 or 2 per cent. The fusing of the ash in pulverized coal installations has given some trouble but apparently is easily overcome, on the other hand the fine ash, which is carried along with the draft, causes trouble both in the boiler and by settling on surrounding buildings or ground. Offsetting the disadvantages the great advantages of pulverized coal for stationary boilers seem to be: First-the ease with which a change in the load on the boiler can be taken care of. Second-when a boiler is cut out for a short period the "stand-by" losses are much less and, Third-a much poorer grade of fuel can be used. In many cases where pulverized coal has been used it has replaced slack coal which is of little advantage to the coal operator. However,, in other places it has replaced gas or oil and this is where the coal man is interested. Pulverized coal has the same advantages as the liquid or gas fuel but the question as to which is preferable depends on their relative cost at the point of use. In small stationary boilers where stokers are not used, very frequently the larger sizes of coal are, and it would be an advantage to the coal industry for them to be converted so as to burn pulverized coal, but so far there are only records of a few of such small installations having been a success and there is apparently room for a large amount of experimentation. In furnaces, such as smelting and assaying furnaces, annealing furnaces, etc., slack coal is not used and where pulverized coal has been installed it nearly always replaces fuel oil or gas. Just how much increased consumtion of coal can be made by pulverizing it for use in furnaces of this type can not be determined but it seems worthy of investigation. For locomotive boilers pulverized coal has found some application up to date but where it was being used in the United States it was stopped when we entered the war. In Brazil, however, the Central Railway has been using pulverized coal for locomotives with excellent results. If it could be possible to apply it to locomotive use where fuel oil is now used, or the larger sizes of coal, it would certainly make a big difference in the slack situation. Now as to the uses of slack coal without pulverizing. The writer's investigations lead him to believe that the greatest opportunities in this direction are in the line of increasing its use by apartment houses and small home owners. In fact in looking into the subject I found that a number of men in Salt Lake City are using run of mine coal in the usual type of house furnaces, some of them by separating the fines and wetting them down before feeding to the furnace claim they get no loss whatever through the grate. However, for best results with fine coal different types of furnaces must be installed and for apartment houses it would seem necessary to have either a small automatic stoker or else spray the fine coal in with an air blast from

Jan 1, 1922

By Margaret N. Maxey

Man's capacity far fretting is endless, and no matter what difficulties we surmount, how many ideals we realize, there is a stealthy pleasure in rejecting mankind or the universe as unworthy of our approval. - Will Durant Until recently, reasons for favoring one or another energy alternative were advanced on the basis of technical considerations and economic realities. However, it is an indication of the cultural climate of our society and growing realization of why energy is our master resource that many citizens have begun to express concern about the social and ethical implications of our energy deci¬sion-making. A vivid indication of this shift toward ethical concerns is reflected in the attention being focused on conservation - even to the point of regarding it as a virtual panacea equivalent to a "free energy resource." Among others, the authors of a publication by Resources for the Future cautions us about the difficulties of defining conservation. They also point out that unrealistic expectations for achieving the high levels of conservation claimed by true believers may boomerang if, at the same time, we are morally required to maintain economic growth and robust productivity for the basic well-being of more people. In its economic meaning, conservation signifies the most economic or cost-effective applications of energy, together with other resources, in a given process or activity. To achieve conservation that is cost-effective, saving energy alone is not sufficient; the cost involved in saving the energy must be no greater than the cost of the energy that is saved. Using its thermodynamic meaning, conservation and efficiency are viewed as constrained by physical laws and measured against ideal limits set by these laws and processes. Since achieving higher levels of technical performance is not without costs, the economic meaning of conservation must be factored into technical possibilities. It is the ethical, equity and environmental meaning of conservation that concerns us here. In its third meaning, conservation consists in moderation as a value which appears inherently worthwhile both in itself and in relation to social choices dedicated to achieving distributive justice. The value of moderation seems predicated on the assumption that natural resources and the environment have fixed, finite, exhaustible capacities for satisfying human needs. Hence norms for moderating human behavior appear to require prescriptions by some authority. Such norms presuppose some agreement on "essential" uses of energy. However, the difficulties of setting behavioral norms loom large, because "... it is as difficult to determine essential energy consumption as to determine what is essential in any other phase of consumption, whether it involves food, clothing, shelter, or recreation." The ethical meaning of conversation is further complicated by a centuries-old argument over the proper exercise of stewardship - i.e., how best to develop natural resources. On the one hand, the preservationist position insists on an inviolate, "hands-off" policy and stands opposed to ongoing development of wilderness areas and mineral resources. On the other hand, the "scientific conservationist" who preaches the "gospel of efficiency" insists on development of resources based on principles of sustained-yield, multiple use and - in the case of competing claims - reserving resources or land for their "higher use." Current confusion reigns among opinion leaders in the environmental movement because they appear to have lost the genius of the original Conservation ethic, developed in the 19th century. They seem to think that conservation is preservation. The question I wish to explore is whether a single-minded, exclusive pursuit of "conservation" in its economic, thermodynamic and preservationist meanings may actually do more harm than good in serving the ethical goals of conservation. There

Jan 1, 1986

By G. A. Knox

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject assigned to me would cover a great many pages if it were gone into thoroughly. Therefore. I have just touched on a few of the most important points. I think that everyone engaged in the production of commercial coal understands all about its preparation, but I will set forth my views as to how I believe it is best accomplished. In order to produce the best prepared coal, your first attention should be to the miner at the working face. The most careful system of blasting should be adopted to avoid heavy charging of holes which results in the shattering of the coal. The lump, or any other screened sizes that may be screened from coal that has been improperly shot, are subject to greater degradation in transportation and handling, as well as reducing screened sizes, which results in dissatisfied customers in the first case, and lower realization in the latter.

Jan 1, 1928

Mr. O. F. Lewis opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. lie announced that Stan Shuhart, had the following announcement. to make: Stan. Shubart: George Delamater of Fort, Lauderdale, Florida scads greetings to his friends here at the meeting. O. F. Lewis: Thank yon, Stan. This morning we will start our meeting by turning it over to a very distinguished gentleman. I'm sure all of you know him. He started his work career many, many years ago, but lie doesn't look nearly this old, and his energy belies this. From 1.910 to 1916 he was a chemist with the American Smelting & Refining Co. at. Garfield, Utah. From 16 to '17 he was a broker with J. A. Hogle Company at Salt Lake. From 1917 to 1948 he was a metallurgist, ore buyer, assistant manager and later general manager of the Utah department. ASRC at Salt Lake City; and also president of the Garfield Chemical Co. Since 1951 to the present. time he has been President and General Manager of the Independent Coal & Coke Co. and Vice President of the Western Rock Bit Co. He has held many, many honorary positions; former Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, former President of the Salt Lake Winter Sports Association, Past President. of the Community Chest there, and is presently a Director of National Coal Association, a Director of the First Security Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, and also a Director of the Hotel Utah.

Jan 1, 1965

BHP-Utah International, Inc. Coal Magazine Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Southern Pacific Lines Tamarron Resort Utah Power & Light Company Utility Fuel

Jan 1, 1991

By G. A. Murphy

This tipple differs from the ordinary tipple only in that it embodies numerous refinements for grading and otherwise preparing the coal. Coal from the mines is delivered to the tipple over a surface tram. There are two tracks for loads, which will hold about forty cars, and one track for empties which will hold about the same number. The loads are fed to the dump by gravity from both tracks and are controlled by two squeeze blocks. These blocks are of the type originally designed by Mr. W. J. Elwood, but unlike the original blocks which were of wood and operated by hand levers, are built of steel and operated by com¬pressed air at 100 pounds pressure. They are capable of holding securely twenty-four three-ton cars on a grade of 2.5%. The dump is of the complete revolving type and has a capacity of five cars per minute. After being dumped the empty cars go to the usual kick-back and onto the empty track by gravity. The hopper under the dump has a capacity of approximately fifteen tons, and the coal from this hopper is fed to the shakers by a reciprocating feeder. The screens are of the usual shaker type. They are eight feet wide, seventy-two feet long in two sections, balanced, pitch 12° 30", travel six inches and the eccentric shaft makes 100 revolutions per minute. The upper section of the screen is shorter but heavier than the lower section, and contains the slack and nut screens, consisting of plates with 1 5/8" and 3" round perforations respectively. The lower section contains plates with 4 ½ ", 6" and 8" round perforations respectively, from top to bottom in the order named. The shaker is so arranged that nearly all changes for making the different sizes of coal are made by merely shifting levers. The most complicated change has been made in two and a half minutes; most of the other changes can be made in less than one minute and some of then without stopping the shaker. One of the refinements is what we call the degradation screens. Just before the coal leaves the shaker it goes over a screen with 1 3/8" round perforations, which takes out the fine coal made while the coal is going over the other perforations. This fine coal goes into hoppers and onto the degradation conveyor and to the slack chute. The different sizes of coal, excepting the slack, are delivered by the shaker onto three picking tables. These tables are horizontal for twenty-four feet and then hinged to form the loading booms, so that each picking table forms a unit of continuous conveyor. Centrally located under the picking tables and under the floor, is the refuse conveyor which runs at right angles to the tables. The impurities picked from the coal are dropped into openings in the floor and onto this conveyor, from which they are discharged into a bin of 100 tons capacity. From this bin the refuse is loaded into railroad cars through a gate. The slack may be loaded directly into railroad cars through a chute from the hopper under the shaker, or it may be conveyed to the rescreener. Gates are provided by which all or any part of the slack may be loaded either directly into railroad cars or conveyed to the rescreener. The rescreener is a shaker four feet wide with sixteen feet of plate perforated with 3/4" round holes. The framework is wood, the pitch is 5° and it is driven by eccentrics having a 5 3/4" throw running 143 R.P.M. It is hung on 1"x10" ash boards, rigidly fixed at the support and on the shaker, so that the spring of the boards allows for its movement. The eccentric rods are also of ash, rigidly fixed and spring to allow the movement of the eccentrics. The dust going through this shaker drops into a bin of 80 tons capacity and is loaded into railroad cars

Jan 1, 1925

By J. L. Floyd

The Trapper Mine is a large surface coal operation located in northwestern Colorado US. The coal seams at the mine dip an average of 8 degrees so, historically, their dragline pits have been orien-tated parallel to the dip of the coal seam to balance stripping ratios. However, the mine plan in the future G and Z pits is designed to take advantage of pit orientations that are parallel to the strike of the coal. During the initial presplit and cast blasts in G pit, significant slope damage occurred. This damage included the opening of joints and tension cracking. There was also block movement directly above the L coal seam, which is the main plane of weakness in the slope. A detailed site evaluation was conducted to develop specific blast design modifications to protect the slopes during future blasting. The modified de-signs successfully controlled vibration levels during the blasting of the Z pit box cut. This paper includes a review of the blast vibration related factors that influence slope stability along with a detailed discussion of the field tests and design modifications developed.

Jan 1, 2004