Search Documents

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

Jan 1, 1957

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Harold Levent., Manager Coal Activities, Cameron Engineers, Denver, Colorado. The first speaker was Dr. Joseph J. Yancik, Assistant Director-Mining, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington. D.C. Subject-"Coal Mining R&D Programs of the Bureau of Mines." (See index for printed text of Dr. Yancik's paper.) Joseph J. Yancik is Assistant Director - Mining for the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for the Bureau's research programs in mining. Principal programs are the coal and metal mining health and safety research, mining extraction and excavation, tunnelling, explosives, mined land reclamation, mine fires and mine waste disposal. He administers these programs through four research centers and through outside contracts and grants.

Jan 1, 1974

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

Jan 1, 1925

Presiding: Herman Van Houten, Senior Marketing Counselor, Joy Mfg. Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., and John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal &Coke Co., Carbondale, Colorado. The Keynote Speaker, Senator Jennings Randolph from West Virginia, was unable to come due to pressing business in Washington. A film presentation on Surface Mining and Reclamation, "Energy Bridge," Courtesy of Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Company, Denver, Colorado, was shown and was prefaced by comments from James V. Fisher. "Advantages of Longwall Mining in Western Coal Production" was a paper presented by David W. Wisecarver, Supervisory Mining Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Wisecarver graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1949. After two years with International Harvester and two years in the U.S. Army, he joined the engineering staff on a Bureau of Mines underground mining operation in Virginia for eight years where he saw duties as mine surveyor, shift boss, and assistant maintenance superintendent.

Jan 1, 1977

By Charlie Monroe

Savage Company History ?C.A. Savage & Son was founded in American Fork, Utah in 1946 by Kenneth Savage and his father. ?Kenneth?s brothers, Neal and Luke joined the company soon after, and remain involved today. ?Since 1988, the company has focused on its strength, expertise in providing high-quality Operating Services & Logistics Management. ?Today, Savage provides comprehensive services in the following Industries: ?Crude Oil Refining ?Sulphur & Fertilizers ?Coal Production and Mining ?Electric Power Production ?Industrial/Chemical Services ?Lumber and Forest Products ?Railroads

Jan 1, 2005

By Wm. Moorhead

Safety Measures Employed at the Dawson Mines Preventive measures for eliminating and localizing explosions is a subject of special interest to Coal Mining operators at the present time. I shall endeavor in this paper to present the practical methods which have been developed at the mines of the Stag Canon Branch of the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Dawson, New Mexico. Adobe Dusting Adobe is used for practically all dusting on the main haulage roads. It is obtainable in sufficient quantities adjacent to the mines. Loaded into railroad cars by a clam-shell loading crane, and transferred to the mine pit cars at the nearest available point, it is readily distributed along the motor roads by means of the mine locomotives. Of first consideration for adobe dusting is the preparation of the roadway. It is essential that all loose coal and dust be removed, at least to a depth of three or four inches below the top of the rails. The adobe, in a more or less moist condition is unloaded by hand from the pit cars and stored along the previously prepared roadway, to be later scattered to a depth of several inches over the floor, and over the ribs and roof such as is possible by the use of a shovel. The adobe soon loses its moisture and becomes pulverized. Due to the disturbance caused by passing motor trips, men and animals, the dust is effectively scattered along the ribs and roof of the roads. The velocity of the intake air aids materially in sustaining the suspension of this inert matter. Another scheme for distributing the fine dust in use is to chain the top of a pine tree to the rear of the trips, both empty and loaded. Dragging it along the motor roads stirs up the dust and aided by the intake air it is carried for long distances into the workings. The adobe is continually loosened and raked, all rock, coal, etc., being collected in piles and later loaded out in pit cars. One man is employed for each six thousand feet of entry. Dusting Main Return Air-Courses The air-courses are first thoroughly cleaned. All the loose coal and rock is loaded out, the ribs and roof washed down several times. Every five or six hundred feet, the stoppings between the main and return entries are broken through and small doors installed. Blowers are used to force the fine dust into the return air-courses through these openings. Thus suspended the dust travels a considerable distance before it is deposited on the floor, ribs and roof. The material used is chiefly adobe, sun dried, and screened on the outside. A two ton car load of this dust will cover several hundred feet of airway as very little loss occurs, often depositing from 2 to 6 pounds per running foot of entry. Methods of Insertion Blowers are used to force the dust into the main returns. One unit consists of a small Buffalo blower mounted on a truck with a two H. P. motor. A six-inch pipe is attached to the blower and runs the full length of the truck with a projection over the end. A hopper is built over the pipe and connected. Stove pipe or canvas tubing is led from the pipe through door in stopping. When the blower is started dust is fed into the

Jan 1, 1924

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by George A! Nugent, President, Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. The first speaker was Joseph E. Zatek, Product Specialist, Portable Instruments; Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pitts¬burgh, Pennsylvania. His presentation was illustrated by slides and subject, "Problems of Noise as Applied to Coal Mining." (See Index for printed text of Mr. Zatek's paper.) Mr. Zatek has been with Mine Safety Appliances Company for the, past 14 years) Prior to going with M.S.A. he was Indus!, trial Hygienist for Pennsylvania Department of Health, a position he held for 10 years He attended the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and graduated with a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering. He is a member of Air Pollution Control Association, American Society of Safety Engineers, Instrument Society of America and the American Industrial Hygiene Association. He is certified by the American,' Board of Industrial Hygiene in Compre¬hensive Practice of Industrial Hygiene and also by the Bureau of Mines to be an Instructor in Noise Measurement and Control.

Jan 1, 1971

The meeting was called to order at 2 p. m., September 9, 1926, at the Hotel Colorado, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, with the President, Horace Moses, in the chair. Upon motion, the minutes of the previous meeting were accepted. No business being presented, the reading and discussion of papers was proceeded with as outlined hereafter. There being no further business before the meeting, it was adjourned at 4 p. in., Saturday, September 11, 1926. Respectfully submitted, [ ] Secretary-Treasurer.

Jan 1, 1926

Thomas J. Parmley C. N. Sweet T. C. Jenkins W. S. Iliff, Sr. Warren Bracewell L. C. White Fading away like the stars of the morning, Losing their light in the glorious sun; Thus would we pass from earth and its toiling, Only remembered by what we have done.

Jan 1, 1947

At 5:30 p.m. a social hour was held for all RMCMI registrants on the lawn area south of the Gondola Lift House. This was followed by a western steak fry and dancing to the country western band, "The Cat's Night Out". MORNING SESSION Tuesday, June 29,1982 RMCMI golfers came out in force for a shot-gun start of the Championship Golf Tournament at Vail Municipal Golf Course which began its first session at 7:30 a.m. followed by a second at 1:15 p.m. The tournament was headed by William Carpender, chairman and his committee members Gary Bennewitz, Jr. and Gene Christmann. RMCMI members were treated to early morning rolls and coffee in the Conference Center preceding a showing of the RMCMI slide/tape program on enhancing the image of coal mining, by telling the story of the Institute. Following this, the meeting was called to order by President McKeever at 8:30 a.m. when he introduced Mr. Carl Terzian who presented a workshop entitled "Sure You Have an Image - But What Kind?". MR. McKEEVER: Good morning Carl. I see you're ready to address this bright and busy tail audience. One of the things that I really want to point out this morning and I knew we would have a second chance with Carl Terzian but Carl is someone that will leave a good lasting impression on you and what he will hopefully be talking about, as I remember, is that what he's saying here can be used personally, or for company, or for the Institute, or anything else on image. Carl is Chairman of the Board of Carl Terzian Associates. He is a prominent author, lecturer and consultant. He is headquartered in Los Angeles and he's nationally known: governmental affairs, man¬agerial development and executive speech training and has served nearly four hundred clients since 1969. Each year he travels nearly 300,000 miles to address conventions, conferences and sales and management meetings as a motivational speaker. Carl has been speaking professionally for more than twenty-five years. He was graduate magna cum laude 1957 from the University of Southern California where he was elected Phi Beta Kappa and student body president. He later served as State Department goodwill ambassador for President Eisenhower; public relations director for Lutheran Hospital Society of Southern California; dean and professor of political science and speech at Woodbury University and public affairs director for architect Charles Luckman. He has been honored for his civic and philanthropic and professional accomplishments by the Congress and State Department, California Assembly and Senate, City and County of Los Angeles, Her Majesty the Queen of England, and six times by the Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge. Carl, welcome to our Coal Mining Institute and it's been kind of a historical situation on Tuesday morning that we will probably have people straggling in after that wonderful steak fry that we had last night. You're very welcome to come and takeover the command. MR. TERZIAN: Thank you very much Ira. This gives me an opportunity for those who were in my luncheon audience yesterday to again thank you for giving me the opportunity of that platform and for the very kind comments that were made following the address. Those of us who had been working for some months with Ira, Charlie, Betsy and many

Jan 1, 1982

By Wm. Monay

MR. MONAY (Vice President Kinney Coal Co., Scofield, Utah): The past year and a half has witnessed a series of coal mine disasters in Utah and Wyoming, concentrated into the short space of a few months, following a long period of years in which the industry was comparatively free from devastating calamities. The natural result has been a hysterical activity on the part of bureaus, commissions and professional reformers who know little about coal mining from a practical standpoint. This activity has been met by the industry in Utah with an attitude of submission, no doubt the result of the fear of being misunderstood by the public. But it is my firm conviction that the lives and property of the coal industry will find their surest guaranty of protection in the humanity, and in the self interest of those operating and working in the mines, rather than in governmental regulation. Inelastic, inflexible blanket statutes and rules will simply stifle and hamper the initiative and progress of our industry in working out its own salvation, under the varying and changing conditions of different localities, different conditions, and in different mines. We who have spent our lives in digging in the mines and operating them, know more about this business than anyone else and I believe it is time for us to speak up and no longer sit meekly by while inexperienced bureaus and unskilled commissions make up laws, rules and regulations for us which when made are on the books to stay, even though in a short time they may prove inapplicable, in whole or in part, or be superseded by something different, and which in some cases create new dangers or lull us into a false sense of security. Shortly after the Castle Gate explosion in March, 1924, a new set of safety rules was issued by the Indus- trial Commission of the State of Utah to become effective July 1st of the same year, the most important of which prohibits the use of black powder in any mine--gaseous or non-gaseous; prohibits the use of open flame lamps in any mine-gaseous or non-gaseous; and requires that rock dusting in all main haulage ways as far as the freezing point and required that all mining machines be equipped with water to be applied while cutting. These rules have been characterized as "Utah's Monument to her Dead Miners" in a large poster spread broadcast over the country from an office in New York that styles itself the Association for Labor Legislation. In reviewing the coal mining history of the State of Utah, in the year 1900, a serious disaster occurred at Winter Quarters. The cause of the same is believed to be an explosion of powder that was stored in the mine, which was a common practice in the early days, and from that time until the Castle Gate disaster, March 8, 1924, a period of some twenty-four years, no explosion of any kind occurred in this district. During all this period open lamps were used, considerable black powder was used, rock dusting was unheard of, sprinkling with water was very generally done-all without any catastrophe. Since the adoption of the new rules, we have 'had a very violent explosion at the Carbon Fuel mine in Spring Canyon. At the time of this explosion, 3,000 feet of the main slope had been rock dusted several times between July 1st and September 21st. The second left entry, which is a main haulage way, a distance of 3,000 feet was completely rock dusted on the date of the explosion. This mine is not considered extremely gaseous, yet an explosion as violent as that of the Castle Gate mine occurred. Some thirty men who had been loading coal in various parts of the mine on this Sun- day, the day of the explosion, and other men employed in rock dusting the second left entry, had just left the mine a little while before it occurred, and no abnormal condition in the mine was noted. At the time of the explosion five machine men were in the mine.

Jan 1, 1925

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

Jan 1, 1955

The 68th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in Manor Vail Lodge, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President Max A. Robb, Vice President and General Manager, U.S. Fuel Company, Hiawatha, Utah. Mr. Robb welcomed the members and guests and was pleased with the large attendance. He then introduced President Joseph E. Ward, former District Man- ager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. (Retired). A brief biography follows: Mr. Ward is a transplanted Westerner, having spent the greater part of his life in the Eastern and Southern areas of this country. In 1927, he graduated from what was then the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, Pa., with a B.S. degree in Mining Engineering. He dropped out of school for a period between his Junior and Senior years and worked in the coal mines in order to obtain sufficient money to complete his education. Practically all his adult life since graduation, has been spent in or around the coal mines in this country. After graduation, he worked the next 15 years of his life as an underground supervisor, first for the Hudson Coal Co., in Scranton, Pa. and later for the U.S. Steel Corporation in Birmingham, Alabama. He then went into sales, selling basically to the coal mine industry and other mining operations. The last 13 years of his business career were spent as a district manager for Joy Manufacturing CO., 10 years of which were in the Coal Division of their Denver office, covering the Rocky Mountain area. He retired in August 1970 but still retains an active interest in the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the Rocky Mountain Coal Industry it supports. He is a widower, his wife, Thelma having died in July 1970. He has two children and six grandchildren.

Jan 1, 1972

By Joseph Harrington

It is sufficiently correct to say that domestic solid fuel is universally hand fired and it is almost as correct to state that a very large proportion of hand-fired domestic fires are extremely inefficient and smoky. This is particularly true with raw bituminous coal for the fuel. The smokeless and efficient firing of domestic coal affords one of the most difficult problems confronting the combustion engineer. This is due to the universally constricted combustion space in the domestic furnace, the complete ignorance regarding the laws of combustion on the part of the average person, and the fact that the laws of efficient combustion are almost completely nullified under these conditions. It is well to familiarize ones self with these laws. These are: 1. The gradual introduction of the fuel to the furnace. 2. The admission and mixing of the right quantity of air with the coal gases. 3. A temperature high enough to permit complete combustion, and 4. A furnace space of volume sufficient to permit of the combustion gases and the oxygen getting together within the confines of the furnace. Even a casual inspection of the domestic heater will show that none of these essential things are present in proper degree, and this is the reason why the problem of domestic firing presents such difficulties. I have analyzed these conditions in a paper published by the Black Diamond, and which has already had wide distribution, so that I will not repeat the rather lengthy discussion in this paper. A survey of the entire field indicates very clearly that a reversal of existing methods and equipment must be had before any real improvement can be expected. It is my firm belief that in this instance above all others it is necessary to build the efficiency and smokelessness into the equipment in such a manner that its performance will be entirely independent of both skill and interest on the part of the operative. To attempt to educate every man, woman and child who periodically throws coal into a domestic furnace would be literally impossible. Much can be done, however, if we could teach the householder the simple essentials of alternate firing, which I have explained at length in the above mentioned paper. This would go a long way toward making the domestic furnace problem more satisfactory, as well as efficient and smokeless. Many will argue, and with good reason, that the domestic fuel should be prepared coke and with this I agree up to the limit imposed by the practical considerations of quantity production, price and the possibility of marketing the by-products. It will be obvious that if enough raw coal should be processed to provide all of the required domestic fuel that the amount of by-products recovered during the coking process would be so great that there would be little or no market at any price which would justify the manufacture of coke. If the by-products were wasted they would not only be a tremendous economic loss, but the price charged for the coke would probably be so high that the market would be limited, and this would defeat the very idea of the whole thing. Much can be done, however, in advancing the use of coke, but I believe that much more extensive and careful experimentization should be had in order to determine the right size and quality of coke for the various domestic furnaces. If coke were to be developed for extensive domestic consumption it is more than probable that the coking process should and could be stopped at a point where the volatile content of the coke would be sufficiently high to permit of prompt ignition and combustion in low draft installations. If the volatile content were from five to ten per cent a very different kind of coke would be produced from that which is now produced with perhaps one per cent of volatile. A skillful manipulation of this feature would make coke adaptable and satis-

Jan 1, 1925

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

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

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

By W. R. Deeths

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

Jan 1, 1984

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by John T. Maulsby, Superintendent of Maintenance and Planning, Columbia-Geneva Steel Division, U. S. Steel Corporation, Dragerton, Utah, representing the past-president. W. K. Dennison, Jr., Superintendent. Koehler line. Kaiser Steel Corporation. Raton, New Mexico, who was unable to attend. Mr. Maulsby welcomed the members and guests, and introduced the President, A. Z. Dimitroff, Mining Electrical Engineer, Health and Safety, District 1-L, U. S. Bureau of Mines. Denver. Colorado. The text of President Dimitroff's address of welcome is as follows: The President's Remarks Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The distinct honor and privilege of officially welcoming you to this, the fifty-seventh regular meeting of the Institute, is indeed a pleasure. Your officers and committees have tried to provide a varied program which I am sure should have something of interest to all of us. The theme of this meeting, "Where Do We Go From here'?", appeared rather fitting for the In¬stitute this year because, as most of you know, until only two weeks ago we thought that this is the last time we will be able to meet at the Colorado Hotel, which has been the favorite spot of most members. Your officers and many of you were literally asking just that question.

Jan 1, 1961