Search Documents

By Thomas Lien

Session 1 - 1 :45 p.m. June 27,1983 Session Chairman: Robert Diederich, RMCMl New Mexico Vice President MR. DIEDERICH: My name is Bob Diederich. I'm the Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Insitute from the state of New Mexico. I'm manager for the Navajo Mine down in Farmington, New Mexico and also project manager for a new mine that we're starling out called the LaPlata Mine in the same area. I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Tom Lien, who is the Director of Engineering, Western Division of AMAX Coal Company. He is responsible for mine engineering, environmental engineering, permitting, reclamation, planning, design and construction plant engineering, geology exploration, quality control and real estate for the western division. He joined AMAX Coal in 1980 as manager of preparation and quality control and was promoted to the present position in August of 1980. He has a BS in geological engineering from the University of Mines. He previously worked for Kennecott Copper Corporation in Hayden, Arizona from 1965 to 1970. He worked as a mine geologist, mill metallurgist, mine production and quality control engineer. Then he also worked for Kaiser Steel Corporation, Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine in California, 1970 to 1977. Worked as a process engineer and plant superintendent at that place. Then he was employed by Mountain States Research and Development, Tucson, Arizona, 1977 to 1980. Worked as a senior process engineer and operation superintendent. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Tom Lien who will talk to us about in-pit coal crushing. MR. LIEN: Thank you. The official title of my paper is actually: "The Potential for In-pit Crushing and Conveying in the Powder River Basin." The Powder River Basin is one of the world's greatest coal fields and will be an important source of energy for centuries to come. About one-eighth of the total coal producing in the United States comes from the Powder River Basin, and 80% of that production came out of Campbell County, Wyoming last year. The growth potential for this region is projected to be enormous. New technology as well as existing technology will make this region competitive in the decades ahead. Understanding the current status of the Powder River Basin, both the mines and the possible methods for changing the means of material movements within the mines is the subject of this paper. Each mine is unique and must be addressed specifically with respect to the application of new and innovative technology. There have been many articles written in the recent mining journals on in-pit crushing and conveying applications, including costs which are very interesting, enlightening and I recommend it to any company considering such installations. To give a general setting, coal production in the United States for 1982 was about 800,000.000 tons. This production came principally from six regions, the Applachian fields of the eastern states where bituminous and anthracite coals have been mined for almost three centuries, the Midwest located in the upper Mississippi Valley are often typified by huge dragline operations of which AMAX Coal has three right now, the Gulf Coast lignites. feeding mine-mouth power plants, the vast bituminous and sub-bituminous departments of the four-comer states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah and finally the Northern Great Plains lignite fields currently being developed and the sub-bituminous fields of Wyoming and Montana including the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. It is the darker brown right in the center of the photograph. It covers about 18,000 square miles. It's about 200 miles north to south and 90 miles east to west. The shallowest coal beds are on the east, north and northwest edges of the basin with deeper coal beds toward the center in the same kind of relationship. There are about one trillion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, that's the one with 12 zeros after it. A little bit there. It's distributed in many, many seams at varying depths to the current topography. In 1982 about 100,000,000 tons of coal were mined from this basin and 81,000,000 tons came out of Campbell County, Wyoming. The mines that are shown in this picture are basically the mines around the basin edge. The principal area that I'll be talking about is the eastern edge down where it shows Gillette and Campbell County. Geologically the Powder River Basin is the Fort Union formation. The most productive seam is called the Wyodak or Smith-Roland or the Anderson-Canyon, depending upon where you're located. There is about 75 billion tons of coal in the Wyodak of which about 23 billion are considered surface minable today. the coal is Paleocene in age, about 40,000,000 years old. It was once an old Delta region very much like the Mississippi River delta is today. During the 100,000 years that this deposit was formed peat accumulated to a thickness of about 365 feet. It was later buried and turned into sub-bituminous coal. All of the coal mined in the basin is for the electric utility industry. This coal has a typical BTU content of about 8,300 plus or minus about 4,500 BTUs. Sulfur coal is generally less than'/ %, thereby making this coal compliance coal in terms of sulfur dioxide emissions, 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

Jan 1, 1983

By F. M. Van Tuyl

The oil industry had its inception in the United States in 1859 when the first oil well was drilled by Col. Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania. From, a production of 2000 barrels for that year there was a slow but steady increase, with some fluctuations, up to 1901 for which year the output was approximately 69,389,194 barrels. Since that time the production has increased with leaps and bounds due to the rapid rise of the automotive industry, the widening use of oil as a fuel under boilers and the development of the. Diesel engine. The production for 1921 is estimated to have been 469,639,000 barrels. During the same year more than 125 millions of barrels were imported from Mexico. The oil industry, including the production, transportation, refining and distribution of petroleum and its products, is now the third largest in the country. Present Condition of the Industry During and immediately after the war the demand for petroleum exceeded the domestic production plus the imports from Mexico with the result that our storage oil was heavily drawn upon. Prices for crude exceeded all previous levels in the history of the industry. Pennsylvania crude sold for $6.10 per barrel and Mid-Continent crude for $3.50. Such prices stimulated wildcatting greatly with the result that several important new oil pools were discovered. Then as production increased the depression came which caused a large falling off in consumption. Pennsylvania crude fell to $2.25 per barrel and Mid-Continent to $1.00. Large oil companies such as the Standard, Sinclair and Empire took advantage of the situation, erected additional storage tanks and bought up millions of barrels to hold until better prices returned. Prices have already improved owing to a better market, but the domestic production coupled with the Mexican importations is still in excess of the demand with the result that the surplus is being stored. At the close of the year 1921, the U. S. Geological Survey estimates that there were 183,890,000 barrels of crude in storage in this country, the largest stocks in the history of the industry, yet an amount sufficient to supply the country for only 119 days at the present rate of consumption. Price reductions are again anticipated in some quarters but in view of the probable falling off in the Mexican output in the near, future due to the rapid rate of exhaustion of several of the most important pools and in view of the expected increase in consumption of gasoline and kerosene during the spring and summer months it is more likely that the present price level will be maintained. Present Sources of Domestic Supply Seven major oil fields are recognized by the U. S. Geological Survey in the United States. These are the Appalachian, Lima-Indiana, Illinois, Mid-Continent, Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountain and California. Two of these, Mid-Continent and California, supply about seventy-five per cent of the present total domestic output

Jan 1, 1922

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 154 ACZ 149 AmerCable,Inc 144 Andalex Resources, Inc 118 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 101 Canyon Fuel Company 145 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 95 Continental Conveyor 148 Cove Shoes 136-137 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 121 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 134 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 115 Dakota Coal Company DriltechInc 135 Empire Machinery Company 94 Energy West Mining Company 122 Fluor Daniel 100 GH Hensley Industries 126. 127 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 123 Holme, Roberts & Owen 98 Honnen Equipment Company 150 Ingersoll-Rand Company 141 Jennmar Corporation 142 Joy Mining Machinery - A Harnischfeger Industries Company 104 K & P Sales Engineers, Inc 114 Kennecott Energy Company 155 Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation 96 LeTourneau,Inc 160 Long-Airdox Company 112 Magnum Metals, Inc 133 McLanahan Corporation 129 Mine Technik America 124 Mineral Tech 151 Morrison Knudsen Corporation 97 The North American Coal Corporation 130 Northwestern Resources Company 125 P&H MinePro Services 157 Peabody Western Coal Co 131 Phillips Machine Service, Inc Pincock Allen & Holt 120 Powder River Coal Company 107 Pyro-Chem 156 RamseyTechnology, Inc 119 Rust Tractor Company 90 Salt River Project 91 Savage Industries Inc 89 Schroeder Industries 147 Sheraton Steamboat Resort and Conference Center 111 Skelly & Loy 138 Snowmass Village at Aspen 146 Stamler Corporation (An Oldenburg Group Company) 117 Tamarron Hilton Resort 140 TerraMatrix Inc 139 TIC (The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc.) 99 Trapper Mining Inc 106 Wagner Equipment Company 116 Weir International Mining Consultants 113 Westech 152 Wheeler Machinery Company 128]

Jan 1, 1997

The meeting was called to order with President George B. Pryde in the chair, and C. M. Schloss, acting Secrcetary. The meeting immediately pro¬ceeded to the reading of the papers. Mr. L. S. Ickis read a paper by A. L. Jones, entitled, "Underground Sub-Station Control," and elaborating on the general topic of automatic sub-stations. The discussion was led in part by Mr. E. H. Weitzel, acting as Chairman, in Mr. Pryde's temporary absence. Mr. S. R. DeBoer, who specializes on landscape architecture, gave an interesting talk on the subject of "City Planning and Landscape Architecture for Western Coal Camps." Notes were taken of this talk, which will be found in the proceedings. Mr. Pryde then resumed the Chair; There was no discussion of this paper. Mr. Thomas Foster, of Reliance, Wyoming, then read his paper on "Coal Dust in Mines." After the discussion of Mr. Foster's paper, the discussion of Mr. McKeehan's paper on track bonding, read at the Salt Lake meeting, was resumed, and this discussion will be found printed separately in the proceedings. Mr. Schloss then read an amusing and friendly telegram from C. H. Stevenson, of Price, Utah, which caused considerable merriment, and the Chairman asked Messrs. Weitzel, Littlejohn and Schloss to form an appro¬priate answer, and they answered it in the same spirit. The Chairman then announced the banquet for Wednesday evening and the Theatre Party for Thursday evening. The meeting then adjourned. The meeting resumed at 10:15 A. M., Thursday, February 14, 1924. The Chairman announced a photograph of the meeting to be taken at noon, on the Post Office steps, after which the Chairman appointed a nom¬inating committee, consisting of George A. Murphy, F. W. Whiteside and

Jan 1, 1924

By Michael A. Berdine

Twentymile Coal Company?s first longwall face in the late 1980?s was oriented approximately 45 degrees to the major coal cleats and 45 degrees to the primary horizontal stresses. This combination of stress and coal cleating resulted in frequent violent bursts of coal along the longwall face. The bursts created particles of sufficient size and force with the potential of causing injury to employees and occasional damage to shield components. Partial web cutting was subsequently developed in an attempt to relieve the stress on the coal face and required the shearing machine to travel to the tailgate and back for a full 36 inch web. The partial web cutting pattern is focused on first cutting the lower 90% of the seam to relieve the stress as the shearer travels from the headgate to the tailgate. The web depth during the headgate to tailgate pass is typically in the range of 70% to 80% and varies with conditions to maximize production rates. The top and bottom of the seam in the remaining 20 to 30% of the web are then cut out to allow the shields and face conveyor to advance. 100% of the web is cut at each gate end for a distance of approximately 19 shields. This paper addresses some general mine geology and the procedures and benefits of partial web cutting with respect to safety, production and maintenance on a high production longwall face.

Jan 1, 2004

By Fredrick D. Palmer

U.S. ENERGY: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST Assessing Goals, Needs and Resources ?Decision-makers must balance the needs of average Americans with the need for: ?A strong economy ?A clean environment ?A secure nation ?Events of recent years ?terrorist acts, multiple energy crises and a global focus on sustainable development ?magnify the need to balance these principles ?Coal ?domestic, abundant, affordable and increasingly clean ?meets these needs like no other energy source

Jan 1, 2003

By Richard L. Lawson

The coal producers of the Rocky Mountain states have led in one of America's true industry revolutions - the leaps in productivity and competitiveness that deliver coal-fired electric power to the U.S. economy at prices that are the competitive envy of the world. You are a primary reason the average price of industrial power in the U.S. - the power that creates and upholds jobs - is: ? 10 percent below the French average, where nuclear power is dominant; ? 37 percent below the average for industrialized Europe; ? 49 percent below the German average, where subsidized coal and nuclear rule; ? And 73 percent below the Japanese average where nuclear and liquified natural gas dominate. There are interests ambitious to change all of that; and they will be a subject of my remarks, some by name, rank, and affiliation. Coal-fired power plants in the Rocky Mountain states deliver some of America's lowest cost electricity; and America's coal-fired plants deliver some of the world's lowest cost electricity. Represented here in one room are producers from states that deliver more than 40 percent of America's coal and five of her top 10 producing states. You are cornerstones of America's economic strength and future growth. The theme for this meeting is "The Many Partnerships of Coal;" and, in this keynote, I'd like to offer a variation on the theme. I'd like to discuss a determined partnership that is dedicated to overturning everything you have accomplished, plus the structure of our society - very dedicated, very patient, very determined. This partnership masks itself as being in the public interest but behind the mask a political alliance of three distinct private interests can be seen: ? One is ambitious for economic reward as a right and without the trouble of effort; ? One is ambitious for economic advantage in trade without the trouble of competing; ? And one is ambitious for the power to govern people without the trouble of winning consent in elections - to change the way other people choose to live in accord with their own passionately held beliefs. The international agreement on climate is being used as an artifice to advance these interests, and the interests are making the United Nations a mechanism for achieving those objectives - for turning the screw, so to speak. The President that Americans elect this year soon will come under intense pressure from these partners to: ? First, quickly adopt policies that will raise U.S. energy prices and restrict use under the climate agreement; ? And in 1998 - if they follow their own published plans - to begin the subordination of the independence of the United States to a collective sovereignty in economic, political, legal and other matters. The Worldwatch Institute inaugurated this pressure last year with a policy monograph entitled Partnership for the Planet: An Environmental Agenda for the United Nations. This is but one indicator of the situation I ask you to consider. The pressure will increase after the election. Worldwatch is one of those intellect-oriented "public interest" groups whose work often leads to policy proposals and debate. Worldwatch gets money from the U.N. Population Fund and the MacArthur Foundation among others. And so my remarks require wading waist deep into one of the more sporting current propositions of American public policy - discussion of ambitions for and within the United Nations to achieve that which the ambitious call global governance. Since last year's media focus on the militia movement - and talk of black helicopters - any

Jan 1, 1996

[Page Minutes 5 Low Temperature Distillation and Briquetting 8 F. C. Miller. Discussion of Mr. Miller's Paper 11 Track Bonding 15 D. C. McKeehan. Discussion of Mr. McKeehan's Paper 16 Report of Safety Committee 19 Wm. Littlejohn 19 P. F. Patterson and G. A. Knox 20 D. Harrington, J. C. Roberts and Jas Dalrymple 22 Discussion of Report of Safety Committee 27]

Jan 1, 1923

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

[JOHN B. MARKS President Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado H. H. BUBB Vice-President for Colorado Cokedale, Colorado W. J. REID Vice-President for Utah Wattis, Utah WM. MOORHEAD Vice-President for New Mexico Dawson, N. M. GOMER REESE Vice-President for Wyoming Frontier, Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: E. H. McCLEARY Alamo SAMUEL TESCHER Denver UTAH: DAVE BROWN :Storrs JOHN JENNINGS Hiawatha NEW MEXICO: JAS. McDOUGALL Van Houten GEO. MIKSCH Gallup WYOMING: T. H. BUTLER Hanna L. A. NORMAN Sheridan]

Jan 1, 1925

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

Profiled here are the eight RMCMI 2001 Scholarship Award winners. Seven of the eight attended the 97th Regular Meeting and Convention at the Steamboat Springs Sheraton Resort in Steamboat Springs, Colorado in lace June. Each spoke during the Scholarship Awards Monday luncheon and shared their goals with attendees. Thanks to the Patrons of the Institute each student received a 52,000 tuition credit, a plaque signifying the honor and the opportunity to thank the membership. The winners were guests of the Institute Sunday through Tuesday noon and had an outstanding opportunity to meet many in the coal industry that could be potential employers. The state vice presidents host the winners anti pay for their travel and hotel expenses. This is a continuing scholarship and may be renewed for tuition credit again in the senior year it the winner is a full time student and is recommended by the dean of the college or university. A resident from each of the eight member RMCMI states is selected by the Scholarship committee from Board approved institutions. Criterion for the awards is chat the recipient be (1) a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit in the junior year. (2) a U. S. citizen and a legal resident of the member state. (3) in good academic standing while pursuing a degree in a mining related field. They must have an expressed interest in western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthwhile project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his company. Through donations of 5100 or more to the Patrons of the Institute, each new Patron receives a plaque and then a year bar for each additional year contributions are made. Contributions may he directed to RMCMI Patrons, 8057 S. Yukon Way, Littleton, CO 80128-5510. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Steven W. Shipley University of Arizona The son of Bonnie Fawcett and David Shipley, Steven graduated from Catalina Foothills High School, Tucson, Arizona where lie attained a 3.5 GPA. In his third year at the University of Arizona lie is pursuing, a degree in mining engineering. He is a member of SME, Northwest Mining Association, and a volunteer at San Xavier Mining Laboratory -Miner. He participated in Football, Track, Wrestling and the DECA club while in high school He is the recipient in both the WAAIME and the Phelps Dodge scholarships. Steven volunteers during the academic year at the U of A San Xavier Mining Laboratory. He worked the summer of 2001 at the Black Butte Coal Company in Point of Rock, Wyoming. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Brian Gerdes Colorado School of Mines Graduating as the Valedictorian of Horizon High School with a 4.0 GPA, Brian is well prepared for the rigors of academia. In high school he was recognized in rite President's Education Awards Program and as a Radio Shack Tandy Scholar. lie belongs to SME, is a member of Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and volunteers at a local elementary school tutoring children. He enjoys intramural Sports. His father is Bruce Gerdes of Broomfield, Colorado Brian is holding a 3.75 GPA while studying for a mining engineering degree. He would like to go into reclamation scaring that his dream would be to reclaim an old mine and restore it to a function, al role in society again.

Jan 1, 2001

PRESIDENT MOSES: I think this will conclude our program for this afternoon, unless you have some- thing else. Mr. Holman, will you tell us what you are doing in the way of your local chapter, around Dawson? W. C. HOLMAN: (Chief Engineer, Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Dawson, New Mexico.) We have organized a local chapter of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and we invite all foremen, fire bosses, shot firers or anybody interested, either on the surface or in the mine. I think at the last meeting we had sixty to seventy men present. We hold meetings once a month; usually on a certain set Tuesday or second Friday of the month, or so on. We have a President, a Vice-President and a Secretary-Treasurer. There are no dues connected with it. We aim to take up the' papers that are presented at the various meetings of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and also any other subject that would be of interest, connected with our own mining operation. We usually ask two or three men to pre- sent papers, rather than one man. We find it difficult in getting one man to work up any subject, but two or three men work up very interesting papers. While we have just recently organized, we aim to have luncheons in connection with it, and possibly once a year a banquet or .some similar activity that we think would interest the men. We feel it is going to be a great help in carrying on the work of the present organization in presenting the activities around the mines. PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Holman. Has any one any- thing to bring up at this time? MR. LITTLEJOHN: I would like to ask Mr. Holman if the Institute or the Chapter there is confined to Dawson alone, or open to other camps in New Mexico? MR. HOLMAN: At the present, Mr. Littlejohn, it is just confined to our own camp, although we intend to invite the members and the officials of the other camps later on, perhaps. Especially, if we gave a banquet, no doubt we would invite the others. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Is there any other Chapter in New Mexico besides yours in Dawson, Mr. Holman? MR. HOLMAN: None that I know of, right now.

Jan 1, 1926

By S. W. Farnham

Those who remember the years of patient effort and the slow results obtained in the first introduction of electrical coal cutters and locomotives will, I think, admit that mechanical loading of coal is unquestionably being established at a much more rapid rate than any previous application of machinery to reduce manual labor in mines. There are many operators who consider the progress of the loaders today as slow, but considering the number of years it took to thoroughly establish electrical coal cutters and locomotives, and comparing it with the short time that the mechanical loader has been on the market, and the results that have been obtained today, they will admit, I think, that the progress of the latter is much more rapid. It is about 35 years since the advent of the electrical coal cutter and electric locomotive. Their use has brought about these improved conditions, increased tonnage per mine and other features, which are of assistance to the installation of mechanical loaders. The management and the technical staff in practically all of the American mines are trained in the use of electrical machinery and understand its operation, care and maintenance. . There is frequently, a surplus of electrical power and wiring available to take care of the small requirements of the electrical loader. The mechanical loader, therefore, starts today with the ground prepared for it. Those manufacturing companies who have had years of experience in the design and construction of mining machinery, know in a large measure what to incorporate in their designs to make the parts of the new type of machine effectively strong and to operate with efficiency under the severe conditions encountered in mining service. All these advantages greatly assist the success of a new type of machine such as the mechanical loader. In spite of these advantages, however, there are bound to be some failures. All new types of loaders have to be developed. We hear of some that are a success and some that are set aside. The field of application of each type and its limitations first must be determined by actual operation. The earlier loaders had to be changed and improved in design as weaknesses developed. Not all of the new types of coal loaders have been built by mining machinery manufacturers of long experience, and the lack of experience in this line is responsible for some of the early failures. The coal mining company staffs and also those of the loader companies had to learn what the operating factors were that made mechanical loading a success. The difference in results obtained by loaders in different properties under similar physical conditions indicates that the mine management is a very large, if not the major factor, affecting the efficiency of mechanical loading. Many articles have been written on the question of loading. The subject has been quite fully discussed at recent coal meetings and in the technical press. It is not always as easy or simple a matter to form conclusions as may first appear as to one's own particular loading problem. Mechanical loading is a comparatively new art, and many companies while claiming that loaders are quite successful, do not have an accurate line on the actual saving they are affecting. Many of them have only a few of the factors taken into account in their costs. Many loaders have been generally bought without very careful consideration given to all details and except where extremely favorable conditions prevail, failure resulted. When contemplating the installation of mechanical loading, one naturally desires to select the type of loader that will, fit his mining conditions. The things

Jan 1, 1924

By C. H. Trik

Any article or discussion on the ventilation of Working Faces under different systems of concentrated mining is of little value to any practical man unless based upon facts gleaned from actual experience, and empirical data on this subject is, to say the least mighty scarce. Of this one thing, however, you can rest assured, the old cry of "no air at the working faces" will have become a thing of the past. No longer will we hear of some operator who has been too eager to get out the coal and who has lost sight of everything else in his mad dash for production, digging himself shut until his airways are mere pin- points and his air current a feeble thing, too weak to combat the high resistance of his restricted mine. A mine operating under one or more of the various systems of concentrated mining should always have plenty of air, for in concentrated mining the tendency is toward greatly reduced mine resistances due to increased sectional areas. It can readily be seen that the tendency is to large, wide areas across the panel and where this is true large volumes and low gauges are the rule, unless inordinate restriction is encountered in the permanent airways, and no operator, far sighted or progressive enough to adopt this system of mining when his conditions permit, would ever allow his main airways both intake and return, to be anything but model courses. As a matter of .fact, we are likely to encounter the opposite of what is usually the case in most mines to day. We are apt to find the air at the working faces sluggish due to the large areas of passage rather than to high resistance. This is combated in. various ways which will be discussed further along in this article. Those companies, of which we have knowledge in this country who, to- day are using any of the new systems of mining, seem to proceed alike in the general method of developing their acreage. Let us assume, for this discussion, the Utah Colorado Coal Corporation is going to open a mine under the new system and their conditions are such as to permit their adopting the simple block system, each face served by a separate machine, each entry having its conveyor to the cars. After the permanent haulage and airways are driven "narrow work" starts to shape the blocks. We are not interested in the length of these "conveyor headings" since we do not need to drive breakthroughs nor build stoppings for ventilation until we have reached their end when we connect them together. We have two methods of sending air to the face of these dead ends. We can laboriously and expeilsively install brattice cloth, as we go, or we can use a small auxiliary blower with canvas tubing to the face. Indeed I may say that one of the great difficulties encountered under the new systems is in the ventilation of these narrow faces. After they have been connected and an air circuit or current established, ventilation becomes plain sailing until the block is worked out. The auxiliary blower when used with flexible canvas tubing, has been found to be the ideal answer to the question of how to ventilate the headings which are anywhere from 100 to 1,000 feet long. These small blowers when properly used, can go a very long way to assist in further reducing the cost of production already assured by the new method of mining. Right angle bends are made by the tubing manufacturers to enable the fan to sit in the fresh air current, yet out of the way of operations and any recirculation is positively avoided by blowing the air around the corner to the face.

Jan 1, 1926

By R. Dawson Hall

R. DAWSON HALL (The Coal Age, New York City) : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I do not feel that I have anything in particular to say. I have not prepared anything for an occasion such as this. I just came from New York City, and as one man said to me today, "That is not any recommendation in particular." (Laughter.) In answer to your request for a few remarks of a timely character I would say: One of the possibilities in the Rocky Mountain Region coal mines is the use of steel arches, posts and straps. The timber of the region seems unusually subject to dry rot and does not last long, especially in those places as in southern Wyoming, where the mine atmosphere is likely to contain a large quantity of carbon dioxide. It is true that, in many mines, much care is taken to drive out this gas and to arrange that the timber will have the fresh air that will prolong its life, but despite such provision much timber is subjected to speedy rot. Steel has made rapid progress in England, Germany and France and is recognized as an economy, not an extravagance. Frequent replacement of rotting wood and removal of broken rock are a source of great waste, risk and inconvenience in operation that together spell great cost. The very dryness of the mines and the lack' of acid water are favorable to the use of steel where support of roof or sides is necessary.

Jan 1, 1932

By Steve Griles

Mr. Griles did not make his speech available for reprint. Looking Down the Road: The Environmental Side of the 1990s and Beyond Environmental Social Responsibility Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, Widow Combs, Bohpal and Three Mile Island are familiar names to all of us-names which evoke memories of environmental tragedies. These memories, as well as memories of other environmental disasters, lead us to pose this question: What is the nature of the environmental social contact between industry and society? The manner in which one answers this question will. in large measure, answer the question of where one thinks environmental issues will go, or should go, in the 1990s and beyond. The history of the evolution of the environmental movement will be helpful in defining and under- standing just what society's environmental responsibility is and, perhaps, what it will be. To Define the Future Start With the Past The common law, which most of the United States adopted from the English system of jurisprudence, traditionally considered pollution control and other environmental issues to be a matter of determining the relative rights of private property owners and of individuals. Legal and equitable theories, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass and the law of riparian rights, were utilized to allocate responsibilities between parties under the common law. The discharge of pollutants into streams and into the air was by and large considered acceptable, at least up to the point that another's "reasonable" use of the same air or waterway was significantly impeded. Further, the judicial decisions interpreting the applicability of the common law to the protection of the environment generally reflected the social and economic pressures of the age. During the Industrial Revolution, the decisions and policies had a marked tendency to favor industrial development. Jobs and industrial growth are deemed as important, and in some cases more important, than the protection of people and property. Additionally, the idea of a social responsibility, beyond that owed to a competing land or water user, was nearly alien to the early common law.' One could even go so far as to say that, had there been a social environmental contract under early common law (which, of course, there was not); but if there were, it would have been to promote actions which facilitated industrial development, even at the expense of the environment. Post-World War LI industrial expansion brought with it a growing awareness of limits on the environment's ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution. Thus evolved an era of social and political adjustment, as society began to shift away from supporting big business and industrial development and toward supporting domestic government programs and limits on industry. States gradually stepped in with efforts to address environmental issues. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the West Virginia Surface Mining Act of 1939, while lax in comparison to today's standards, nevertheless marked definitive efforts toward altering the balance between industrial development and environmental protection Pollution control continued to be viewed as a state responsibility through the 1950s, until Congress began, for the first time, to allocate funds for federal research on air and water pollution and to implement

Jan 1, 1988

President Robert Wilson opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. He introduced William A. Bear, General Manager Bear Coal Company, Inc., Somerset, Colorado, who presided over the session. George Nugent, Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, presented a most interesting film "Montana Mine Reclamation." His biography follows: George Nugent first entered the coal business in 1943 when he developed Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.'s first coal mine-Big Horn Coal Company at Sheridan, Wyoming. Since that time he managed an expansion program for P.K.S. in mining that resulted in the development of two other producing mines - Rosebud Coal Sales Company at Hanna, Wyoming and Decker Coal Company at Decker, Montana, in which Pacific Power and Light is a partner. Applications are now pending for a third mine. Black Butte, a joint venture of P.K.S. and Rocky Mountain Energy Company, near Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Nugent is a Past President of the Wyoming Chapter, Association of General Con- tractors, Wyoming Mining Association and Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. He was President of Big Horn Coal Company and Rosebud Coal Sales Company as well as Manager of the Mining Division of Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. and Decker Coal Company when he retired Jan. 1, 1975.

Jan 1, 1976

PRESIDENT OLIVER: May I have your attention, please, gentlemen? The Forty-Fourth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain, Coal Mining Institute is now In session. I want to say just a few words of welcome to all the delegates this morning, both old and new. There is a large group of men around here I notice who come to this meeting year after year, and it occurs to me that they must be getting something worthwhile out of these meetings, the renewal of old acquaintances, the making of new acquaintances, and the opportunity to find out what is doing in the technical end of the coal business, and what is new. So, we greet you enthusiastically and trust that you will find this meetnig on a par with all those which have gone before and. that each one of you will leave these sessions determined that you will not miss next year but will be back again. So, with that introduction, we will proceed with the business of the convention. As time is fleeing away from us, if there is no objection, I wil lentertain a motion to dispense with the reading of last year's minutes. Will somebody make that motion? MR. H: C. MARCHANT: I move we dispense with the reading of last year's minutes. (The motion was carries unanimously.)

Jan 1, 1948

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