Search Documents

By Glen A. Knox

The writer has been asked to set forth for this Institute, the experience of the past eleven months in the mining operation conducted at Sweetwater Mine in which coal has been produced by the use of Link-Belt Conveyors on long faces. The coal in this mine has an average of six feet three inches in thickness, and lies on an average pitch of five degrees. The roof is a sandy shale of medium hardness and has been generally considered as good top in the room and pillar method of mining. When our company became interested in conveyors, the writer visited most all of the mines in the East where conveyors and other mechanical methods of mining were in use and decided that the modified method of w-hat is in use at the Norton-West Virginia mine would be the most feasible for our conditions. We in- stalled three hundred feet of conveyor as an experiment to see whether or not our roof could be handled and taken care of on long faces. This three hundred feet was installed as two separate conveyors, one as a face conveyor-100 feet in length, the other as a heading conveyor that delivered the coal into the mine car on the main entry. This face was worked directly on .the strike and down the pitch. This did not prove to be a success as the caving of the roof carried over to the working face and necessitated propping between the conveyor and the face and it was also necessary to shovel coal on the conveyor up the pitch. After working out this block, 200 feet in length, we installed these two conveyors at a place adjoining this worked out block, but on a half V shape shown on the sketch. This block of coal was sixty feet wide. This method proved to be very successful. We cut a place, moved the conveyor against the face before shooting and carried two rows of cribs between the conveyor and the cave, and caved the roof every second cut. After working out this block we were satisfied that this system was feasible with our mine. We then ordered twelve hundred feet more of the same type as the trial conveyor with the exception of a very few modifications. We then installed this fifteen hundred foot unit on the four faces shown on the sketch, with one hundred feet to each face, two hundred feet on each heading and three hundred feet on the main conveyor that delivered the coal into the pit cars. We also had a head and rear section for each of the four advancing places shown on the sketch. As the sections were taken out of the heading conveyors they were installed on the advancing conveyors, and when the faces approached the main conveyor, the main conveyor was taken out and installed in the next uphill or main conveyor place. The roof caved very well in line of the points and was broken about every twenty feet. It broke in a straight line and did not curve at each V. We encountered no trouble unless we permitted one of the points to get behind. The maximum tonnage possible to be produced on this method was estimated to be seven hundred and twenty-five tons a day, assuming that all places were cut and cleaned up in one shift, and this we did for several consecutive days. While this was a success from a cost standpoint, we felt that we could

Jan 1, 1925

By D. C. McKeehan

The importance of properly bonded rail joints has received the attention of The National Research Council, whose committee will investigate several methods now used and determine the merits of each as applied to street railways. The results of this investigation should be appreciated no less by the mining industry. Literature on the subject of bonding mine tracks agrees, as a rule, "that the work is poorly done." With present day facilities there is little excuse for inadequate track conductivity, and a job well done must be maintained in order to realize results. Many years ago The Union Pacific Coal Company installed their first haulage locomotive, and at that time used the channel pin bond for joining the rails. The system utilized 500 volts and the, relatively small current for a large amount of power, undoubtedly, contributed to the success of the system. The bonding of both rails was considered imperative in those days, while now the bonding of one, rail is considered sufficient in most instances. The recent installations utilizing 250 volts and correspondingly heavier currents required a more effective method of joining the rails for use as an electrical conductor. The company has used the arc-weld bond since its introduction in 1919. The art of electric welding found great favor for various methods of doing the work. The first arc-weld bonds were placed on the outside of they ball of the rail, but the bonds were ill-adapted to rails lighter than sixty pounds per yard, and the results were that grooved locomotive wheels or derailed cars removed the bonds. Familiarity with the process of electric welding brought forth numerous schemes for joining the rails. In one, instance the rails and splice-plates were welded together and with excellent results for a short time. Track movement and vibration finally broke the welds and the method was dis¬carded. Another scheme consisted of placing a channel pin over each end of an annealed copper wire about twenty inches long. The idea was to develop some way of using short lengths of scrap wire. The pin and wire were then welded to the base of the rail. Numerous joints made in this way are still intact, but successful welds were so exceptional that the practice was abandoned. Some of these bonds were welded to the web of the rail, with the result that practically all rails broke at the weld; however, this is our only record of broken rails with arc-welded bonds. At one time a quantity of No. 2 bare iron wire wasp available and was tried as a bond and proved very satisfactory. Two or three strands twenty inches long were used and were welded to the base of the rail. The method was cheap and effective and of some merit for light rails on temporary track. The use of iron wire was criticized because it did not give a balanced circuit; that is, one having equal carrying capacity for trolley and track circuits; and I am of the opinion that this is not always necessary. The total length of bond that is in circuit is so small that it contributes very little additional resistance to the complete circuit consisting of trolley wire, rails and bonds.

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1928

By Kirk Nobis

Develop a Risk Management Plan for Your Mine ? Why? ? Measuring ? Managing ? Conclusion

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1927

Marcie A. Greenberg RMCMI PRESIDENT 1995-1996 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 92nd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 1996 Durango, Colorado

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1927

CLARK MOSELEY RMCMI PRESIDENT 1998-1999 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 95th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 27 thru June 29, 1999 Crested Butte, Colorado

Jan 1, 1998

By NA N/A

Jan 1, 1931

Jan 1, 1974

By David R. Hammond

How Could Natural Gas be Coal?s Best Friend ? - Natural gas is the environment friendly ?fuel of choice?; coal is the opposite - 90 % of new / replacement generating capacity in U.S. projected to be gas-fired - Natural gas-fired generation market share predicted to increase to 25-30% at expense of coal - Natural gas consumption forecast to growth from 22 TCF to 35 TCF per year by 2025 - Gas has good friends in the Environmental Industries and the current Administration

Jan 1, 2003

By 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

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1981

By Thomas Foster

One of the most dreaded things which mining men sometimes have to contend with is underground mine fires, which are both dangerous and expensive. In the Reliance mines we have had considerable trouble with mine fires. We have at the present time five different fire zones, three of these zones give us considerable trouble and the other two have not given any trouble since they have been walled off. Fire Zone No. 1 comprises No. 2, 3 and 4 South Entries, about 50 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 2 comprises the main drift entry from the mouth to the Old Boundary Plane and extends to the crop line, about 10 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 3 comprises 1 and 2 North Entries from the main slope to the Old Boundary Plane, a distance of about 1,200 feet, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 4 comprises 11/2 and 2 North Entries, a distance of 1,100 feet between New Slope and Old Boundary Plane, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 5 comprises the inside end of No. 11/2 and 2 North Entries and 3 North Entry from the New Slope to 30 room, a distance of about 2,600 feet along No. 3 North Entry, about 20 acres are enclosed in this zone. The first mine fire started in No. 2 South Entry in No. 1 zone in 1914. Inside of No. 7 room on the high side of the entry, there was a soft piece of coal. There were no rooms driven in this coal and one day a fire was discovered in the solid pillar on the high side of the entry, work was started at once to load out this fire. and several places was driven into the pillar and cribs built where the coal was taken out, but this method proved a failure and a sand pack was put up along the entry between the track and the high rib. This consisted of timber set about 3 feet from the rib and 2-inch boards put behind the timber and sand or adobe put in between the boards and the ribs, and this method gave very good results except that it required close watching as the sand would settle and let the smoke out between the roof and the sand. Fire broke out in No. 3 South Entry in No. 1 zone in the summer of 1919. We sealed this fire off by building 36 fire stoppings, which also enclosed the fire in No. 2 South Entry and we have never had any trouble with fires in this zone since it was walled off. The fire started in No. 2 -zone in 1919 and has been very active ever since. When this fire was first discovered we built new stoppings in front of the old one in the room necks; we also opened up some of the room necks and loaded out part of the burning coal and rock but this did not help any, the fire, would burn out around the stoppings also burn along the roof between the top coal and the roof sometimes nearly across the entry. Several holes were drilled from the surface to the fire area and flushing the fire was tried but this was also a:\, failure, the rock above the coal was so hot that the mud would dry in the hole and fill it. In 1921 we started to take down the top coal along this entry, timber the entry and put 2-inch boards behind the timber and fill in between the coal and the boards with sand or adobe. We have at present over 1,000 feet of this work done and it has given us better results than any other method that we have tried. As the coal burns out behind the timber the weight breaks the timber and it is necessary to renew some of it. Fire broke out in No. 1 North Entry in No. 3 zone in 1922. There was a stopping in this entry that had been put in when the entry was finished some few years before. The fire burned around the stopping on the low rib of the entry, we built another stopping in front of the old one taking down the top coal and extending it up to the roof also digging in both ribs and setting the stoppings into the coal about 18 inches. This fire did not cause any trouble until June, 1924, when we discovered this fire was very active on the inside

Jan 1, 1924

By Bret K. Clayton

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1987

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel, 919 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan, Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Anderson, Nephi W :Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo:]

Jan 1, 1961