Search Documents

Secretary's Apology: Although every effort was made to secure efficient stenographers, the railroad conditions at the time made it impossible to get stenographers from Salt Lake City. Practically all of the discussion was therefore lost, and the Secretary's apologies are offered to those whose names and remarks we are unable to record. 'We are indebted to R. Dawson Hall of Coal Age for what we have been able to print. The question was asked why belt conveyors are not more generally used. BENEDICT SHUBART: Belt conveyors lack the ruggedness of metal conveyors and require more accurate alignment. They are much used in England though comparatively scarce here. The H. C. Frick Company's belt installation at Colonial mine is an unusual installation for unusual purposes. It is hardly main haulage, but is more comparable to railroad transportation. The belts are in long sections,, nine hundred to twenty-three hundred feet, there are no particular grades, only two turns, and the immense tonnage handled justifies a quality of installation that at this day would not prove economical in most mines. EUGENE McAULIFFE, Union Pacific Coal Co., Omaha: Was much impressed on learning at the American Mining Congress that the Hudson Coal Company had mined last year 1,500.000 tons of coal from a 36-inch bed and had transported this coal to the mine cars by scrapers and conveyors. He did not believe that because one or two percent of the men around the mines were opposed to loading machines, that it should be said that the mine workers were inimical to such labor saving means. He believes that when duly explained to them they could see the advantages of the equipment offered and would be friendly to its introduction. The Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company at Sheridan have eight Goodman Hydraulic loaders in operation in rooms .with Joy loaders driving the headings. It is not possible for the mines which had to pay high wages to compete with those whose wage scales were lower unless by the introduction of loading machines. He received a letter from Dr. L. E. Young of St. Louis, general manager of the Union Collieries Company, that his two Goodman Hydraulic machines were loading an average of three hundred tons each daily. THE SECRETARY: H. N. Taylor, president, Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company, said Mr. Green of the American Federation of Labor told him he would have no trouble with Union Labor, and, if any local disturbances were created, they would be stopped. The Union nationally is with the introduction of labor saving equipment. J. B. FORRESTER, General Superintendent. United States Fuel Company, Hiawatha. In his opinion metal conveyors are preferred because they can be lengthened and shortened at pleasure, and so can be operated with greater flexibility than belt conveyors. W. C. HOLMAN, Chief Engineer. Phelps Dodge Corp: The Phelps Dodge Corporation have two Jeffrey belt conveyors in tandem which obviates brushing where the coal is low. MR. E. O. WIEDERANDERS, Jeffrey Mfg. Co.: Says he has seen belt conveyors in use in England and is much taken with the idea. MR. WM. MOORHEAD, Phelps Dodge Corp.: Our conveyors are in twenty-foot sections, each with a motor. Three of them tandem make a sixty-foot face. GENERAL: There was discussion regarding the size of the coal produced by conveyors. It was said that when the Gunn-Quealy Company started their operations, the coal was very large, but now there is not so much care taken to produce large coal as the market is now demanding smaller coal. The Secretary said that the use of conveyors at the Kemmerer Coal Company's mine had almost doubled the percentage of lump coal. Mr. McAuliffe questioned

Jan 1, 1925

Note this date. This will be the biggest meeting we have ever held. It is arranged so as to permit you to go immediately afterwards to Salt Lake. City to attend the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers there on August 31, September 1, 2 and 3. Notify the Secretary of any change in your address.

Jan 1, 1925

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. 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, John P Development & Resources Corp., 50 Broadway, N. Y. 4, N. Y. Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. 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. Archer, Bryon J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1963

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

The final session on Wednesday morn¬ing was given over to a panel discussion of safety questions submitted by members of the institute. Mr. Murray presided, and Lyman Fearn, chief, Wyoming Dept. of Mines & Minerals, Rock Springs, Wyo., was moderator. Members of the panel were: John A. Garcia, chief mine inspector, New Mexico; Leonard Ford, mine foreman, Frederick- mine, CF&I, Valdez, Colo.; A. C. Moschetti, chief, coal mine inspection branch, USBM, Denver; Kirk V. Cammack, mining engineer, USGS, Denver; Joel N. Van Sant, chief engineer, St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Coal Co., Raton, N. M.; Emery Olsen, safety engineer, coal mine and quarries, U. S. Steel Corp., Dragerton, Utah; F. J. Peternell, safety engineer, Union Pacific Coal Co., Rock Springs; and J. J. Reddy, mine inspector, Colorado Dept. of Mines, Grand Junction, Colo. On a question concerning the effect of roof-bolting on the maintenance of a breakline in pillar removal, Mr. Van Sant reported that some experience at his company's mines indicate that wood supports are not necessary to make the break although shooting is sometimes done to get it. Furthermore, bolting improves the roof in these pillar areas and extraction has increased about 20%. Mr. Fearn concurred in describing operations in parts of Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1953

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

Jan 1, 1972

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

Jan 1, 1957

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

Jan 1, 1968

Jan 1, 1923

Past President Robert L. Hair, General Superintendent, Coal Mines, Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. "I will now call the Fifty-Third Regular Meeting of the Institute to order this morning and welcome the members and the guests. I'm on the program to introduce John Peperakis, President of the Institute for this year. I regret to announce that Mr. Peperakis received word this morning of an emergency at his mine and left to attend to this. We hope it is of a minor nature and he will return. (Editor's Note: Please refer to the index for printed text of the President's address which he had intended delivering, had he not been called away.) However, in the meantime, Robert von Storch has graciously consented to act as president until John Peperakis returns. "I needn't tell you who he is. Robert M. von Storch is General Superintendent of Coal Mines and Quarries, Columbia-Geneva Steel Division, United States Steel Corporation, Columbia, Utah. I now present Bob von Storch." Mr. von Storch: "As most of you know, the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cannot compare to the Mining Congress, as it is not a professional organization. It represents the coal operators in New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Montana and Wyoming. We have a group of volunteers to put this together and use this occasion to get together and exchange ideas.

Jan 1, 1957

By Paul Schmechel

This time of year, our lawn is host to goodly numbers of birds - robins, English sparrows, finches of various flavors and some whose names I don't know. We lure them with a feeder in our backyard and I'm sure Patti and I spend several minutes a day watching them through a picture window that overlooks their coming and going. And, while the picture window supplies us with a constantly changing view, it does not treat our winged friends nearly so kindly. You see, at certain times of the day, reflections on our window feed back to our birds a mirror image of the backyard. Lifting off from the bird feeder, they see before them what is behind them. And, not infrequently they fly straight into the window. They stop abruptly, of course. It has to be quite a shock to discover that what is behind you is not the same as what is in front. At this point, I might be tempted to say something about bird brains - except for the fact that we humans also are prone to deceptive images thrown up by the past. Today, I think we hear a great many voices painting past images as they look to the future. We hear that the price of oil soon will rise to its former elevated position; the price of copper will bounce back; a hungry world soon will escalate the demand for food and our agricultural industry will be back in the black. In fact, we can hear hope from many voices telling us that our major resource-rich, basic industries are poised to fly up. I can hope that the voices are right, but I keep thinking that those expressions come from people seeing false images. Most certainly, it is more comfortable to see the past, rather than acknowledge that the world economy is being restructured and that the restructuring is affecting the Rocky Mountain states profoundly and negatively. The worst mistake we could make may be to place too much credence in the images from our past. We can be lulled into a dangerous complacency. What we need is a tighter belt and the will to do some serious bootstrapping. Before proceeding, I would make two points: First, it is not my intent to be a prophet of doom. But I do think we need some healthy doses of realism, if we are to avoid the shock of flying into a false future. Second, by now you have detected that I have choosen to diversify the assignment you handed me on utility diversification. As I proceed, you soon will see that the roots of diversification for many utilities lie in the subject that we ponder now. We could begin in many places, but let's start with energy. It is pervasive in our businesses and industries. We all use it. And, despite conventional economic wisdom, we are using less of it. The price is down, but we have not reverted to our profligate ways. That is true whether you look at the industrial customer or the residential consumer. As a nation and as a people, we have learned to do more work with less energy. A few statistics illustrated the point. If we use 1973 as the base year, energy use in the United States has declined almost I percent. If we examine the year of peak energy use, 1979, the decline approaches 7 percent. Let's look at it another way. In 1973, for every dollar of gross national product, the United States consumed 27,100 Btu of energy. Last year, 1985, the comparable figure was 20,700 Btu - a decline of 24 percent. So, not only are we using less energy, but we are using it more efficiently. Even though the price of energy has declined, we are unlikely to use substand with natural gas and petroleum consumption. Use of natural gas has dropped almost 21 percent since 1973. Petroleum consumption has declined 1 I percent since 1973 and almost 19 percent since 1978, when the U.S. used a record quantity of petroleum. We also know there's been no appreciable change in amounts of oil and gas used since 1981. We weathered both a sharp recession and a healthy recovery without altering the amount of those fuels used. That the use of oil and gas dropped sharply, while the total use of energy merely slumped a bit is easy to explain. The use of coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity from 1973 through 1985 increased almost 48 percent. Some people will tell you that the large decrease in the price of oil and gas will result in increased demand that will displace coal, nuclear and hydropower. In turn, demand will force the price of oil and gas upward. I doubt it. From the poking around I've done on the subject, I suspect there may be some short-term displacements, but they will be, for the most part, cancelled out by declining use among existing customers. For instance, we all know what has happened in the automotive sector. In 1973, the average U.S. automobile made 13.1 miles to the U.S. gallon of gasoline. In 1984, the most recent available statistic, the average auto made 16.94 miles to the gallon. That's a 19 percent improvement. Because annual miles driven per automobile are essentially unchanged over the period and the number of cars on the road is not increasing, we are witnessing a drop in this segment of the petroleum market. That trend will continue. Now, let's look at energy consumption patterns still another way. Between 1973 and 1985, consumption in the residential and commercial sectors of our economy increased total energy use by 11.2

Jan 1, 1986

Lloyd W. Ingles, Superintendent, Allen mine, Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation. Stonewall, Colorado, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He introduced George C. Trevorrow, Safety Director, Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who spoke on "Recent Developments for Improving Safety in Underground Coal Mines." (Refer to the index for the printed text of this paper.) Following Mr. Trevorrow's paper, James Westfield, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., spoke briefly to the group or some of the new methods of controlling fire mentioned in Mr. Trevorrow's paper. Mr. Westfield stated that the Foam plug had been used in the Bureau's experimental mine, and was also used in New Mexico, but was not successful in putting out the lire. In a recent fire in Southwest Virginia where 18 men were lost, the foam plug was used after the fire had been burning for about 6 or 7 days. It did have a good effect, but the section had to be finally sealed off. In a fire in Pennsylvania about 2 weeks ago, the foam plug was put into action after about 9 hours. Although the section was finally sealed, managers of the mine credited the foam plug in saving the mine. Mr. Westfield stated that equipment must be at hand when fighting a fire; that time wasted in securing proper equipment may make the difference. Mr. Westfield also stated that as late as 2 months ago, it seemed that a methane monitoring device was as far as 4 or 5 years away. Now it is expected that it may be put in production within the year. Experimental models are in use in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Mr. Westfield concluded by complimenting Mr. Trevorrow on his excellent paper.

Jan 1, 1960

On Monday, June 27, 1921, at 6 p. m., twenty-four members of the Institute from. Colorado and New Mexico, left Denver on the Union Pacific for Rock Springs, Wyoming, arriving there at 9:42 a. m., June 28th. The party was met at the depot by the Rock Springs committee and a large number of the local Institute members. The day was spent in visiting the Central Power Plant of, the Union Pacific Coal Company and adjacent mine, the new 'E Plane, the Reliance, Dines, Winton and Sweetwater coal properties in the district. At noon a very elaborate lunch was served in the First Aid Building at the Reliance mine, which was most heartily enjoyed by all. In the evening the members and friends visited the new Rialto theater and saw the pictorial exposition of the' "Sky Pilot". The evening terminated with a dance in the ballroom of the Masonic Temple from 9:30 until midnight, concluding one of the most enjoyable days which the Institute has ever spent in Rock Springs. At 12:3o a. m. the original party, augmented by six members from Rock Springs, were again enroute to Salt Lake City, arriving there at 8:30 in the morning of Wednesday, June 29th. The Hotel Utah had been selected by the local, committee as the headquarters for the convention, and the majority of the -members at once proceeded to that place where the books were opened and the paying of dues and registration of the members were carried on until 11:45 a.m. At noon a majority of the members were entertained at the L. D. S. Tabernacle with an organ recital, which was up to its usual standard of excellence.

Jan 1, 1921

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you any maximum length that you make your dust barriers? What I mean by that is, your entries are 10 feet wide, and I believe if I remember right, in your single track entries you had only one dust barrier to cover the full width of the. entry in your double track entries, I believe you had two-I would like to know, have you any maximum length you make these barriers? MR. CHAS. LEGER, ROYAL FUEL CO., UTAH: It is stated that they shouldn't be over 8 feet long to obtain sensitiveness. If they make them over 8 feet they are not as sensitive as they should be. They should be made short for two reasons in order to keep the sagging out and to make them as sensitive as possible. MR. DAN HARRINGTON, U. S. BUREAU OF MINES: I didn't come here to enter into any extended discussion on rock dusting or to discuss in particular the situation at Dawson. At the February meeting at Denver, we made a complete study of this matter. Since that time a report was completed and reported to the Phelps-Dodge Corporation and Mr. Moorhead probably has a copy of it, which can give you more complete information as to what we found. We found that with the adobe dusting that they have done, they had six miles of entry pretty thoroughly dusted and of all the samples we took, at least 95 percent of them showed that not only the floor but the ribs and roof were in such a condition that an explosion could not originate in any part of this entry. In other words, this entry as it was dusted was absolutely protected from ignition and propagation. The adobe they used was of material that was non-combustible. In most instances there was not more than 3 per cent of moisture in it.

Jan 1, 1924

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

MR. D. HARRINGTON (U. S. Bureau of Mines) : I happen to be a member of the Safety Committee, and the men on the Committee, I believe are the ones who will find the most fault with the report; but I am absolutely not in accord with the last recommendation. (The use of the "Self-Rescuer.") I do not think it safe. I do not think you are always sure you are going to have a sufficient amount of oxygen; in fact I know there are occasions in mines when there is not enough oxygen to make a man safe in a gas mask or self rescuer. At one mine fire, workers using open oil and carbide lights experienced quick reversal of air which extinguished the lights and one of the workers having carbide light was overcome. It took about 45 minutes hard work with Sylvester method of artificial respiration to restore him to consciousness. Fortunately these men were working close to fresh air but had they been far from fresh air base and relying upon self-rescuers or gas masks they would undoubtedly have perished. I was at a mine fire in Wyoming. A bunch of men were working and the air turned on them, and if they hadn't oxygen breathing mine rescuing apparatus I think there would have been at least a half dozen men killed they would have been killed before you could say, "Jack Robinson." PRESIDENT PRYDE: I would like to ask if the self-rescuers are nut approved by the Bureau of Mines? MR. HARRINGTON: They are not; absolutely not.* Furthermore, the Bureau of Mines' Engineers have opportunities to go around in mines, and in mine cars as much as anybody else in the country, and I have in mind but one who is in the slightest degree in favor of allowing self-rescuers to go in a mine. MR. BEVAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Safety Committee if it would be of any use to the fire boss traveling through the mine? PRESIDENT PRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I think we should finish up the discussion on the self-rescuer before we take up any other discussions.

Jan 1, 1924

Pictured on these pages are the six RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1985-86 year followed by a brief profile. Five of the winners were present as RMCMI guests at the June convention at Tamarron to receive their recognition plaques at the welcoming session held Monday, July I, 1985. In addition to the plaques, each winner will receive $500.00 to be used toward tuition in the coming academic year. Also, as this is a continuing award, the winners from the 1984-85 season, will also receive an additional $500.00 for tuition use in their senior years provided they have maintained a good academic standing. Criteria for these awards is (1) 'That the award be made in the spring to a sophomore student to be used toward tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U. S. citizen and a resident of the state involved. (3) That the recipient have good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in Western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member as well as firms, businesses and corporations. Checks payable to RMCMI Scholarship may be mailed to the RMCMI Office at 777 Nile Street in Golden, CO 80401. Profiles of the 1985 winners follow: [ ]BEVERLY MOON Colorado School of Mines Beverly is a resident of Greeley, Colorado. She maintains a 3.1 grade average at the Colorado School of Mines and was on the Dean's List in 1983. In addition she also appeared on the Academic Roll in 198 1 and 1984. She participates in the Society of Women Engineers, and this summer Beverly is working for North American Coal Corporation's Coteau Properties, outside of Beulah, North Dakota, as an Engineer's Assistant. [ ]DEE BRAY Montana College of Science and Technology Dee comes from a small ranch outside of Hall, Montana and is currently pursuing a degree in Mining Engineering at Montana Tech. This summer he is working for North American Coal where he was selected out of more than a dozen applicants for his position. As a side note, Dee's brother, Dean Bray, is also a Mining Engineer, a Montana Tech Grad, and works for Consol at the Glen Harold Mine in North Dakota.

Jan 1, 1985

MR. ENZI: hank you very much. I'm sure there?s a lot of you out there just realizing that Rock Springs and Gillette is not one city. I'm sure there's a lot of you wondering why a person from a town who has the image in the national media that the town of Gillette has is talking to you about image. I had a person this morning ask me if Gillette wasn't the end of the world. The only response I can give is "no, but you can see it from there." We have been researched a lot and, I realize, we've been very lucky because I've observed that researchers cause cancer in rats. In fact a wonder drug is one that has no effect on mice. In fact I've been thinking of posting a sign in my office that would read "due to the large number of interviews by journalists who already have their articles written, we would most respectfully request that anyone wishing to insult the city of Gillette, please limit themselves to 3,000 words or 15 insults, whichever is shorter." I don't know if any of you saw the article in Playboy about three months ago on the city of Gillette. What you probably don't realize about that article is that that was an attempt by Playboy magazine to see if they couldn't change their image to a national municipal magazine. I think it's important to know Gillette is the frontier city, a pioneer city, it's a shopping center for northeast Wyoming and most importantly, we're the energy capital of the nation. We're on the threshold of the Powder River Basin and we will be the nation's energy solution. Besides coal, we're, already the heart of the state's leading oil producing area and we have vast uranium resources. But I, want to tell you the biggest resource that we have is, the people who have come to live in Gillette. You will find Gillette a busy, young, pulsating community. We're experiencing the excitement of growth. We're welcoming a higher percentage of newcomers than any other town in the nation. Yes, growth to us is exciting. Where else can you get ten years of experience in two years? We realize you can't maintain the status quo. Growth can be painful but not as painful as the alternative, recession and depression. For a little bit of background, we are now at 16,000 people and we have another 4,000 people who live on the outside but look like they live on the inside. The Census Bureau says that we have, 11,225 people but we have that many people in a traffic jam on the Douglas Highway in one day. I?ll , tell you about a few things happening in Gillette. I think it's very important to emphasize that I didn't , do these things; it's the youth and the energy of the community that has done these things. Right now the city of Gillette has 32 major projects underway. We have water for 50,000 people and we're seeking more water. The city in 1975 was 1 .8 square miles. Last year alone we annexed I square mile. We build 10 miles of paved streets a year. For the last 8 years we've doubled our parks' budget. I

Jan 1, 1982

In this very interesting paper, Mr. Harrington mentions a considerable variety of materials suitable for use in the rock dusting of coal mines; this suggests that you may possibly be interested in same purely theoretical figures tending to show the superiority of gypsum for this purpose. Some of the gentlemen present have found difficulty in applying a thick, adherent coating of dry gypsum to the ribs and roofs of their workings, for which reason pulverized gypsum will perhaps be chiefly useful for the loading of barrier troughs. In view of the function that rock dust is expected to perform in case of a coal-dust explosion, it seems obvious that the most efficacious dust will be the one that can absorb the most heat and absorb it most rapidly. The customary rock dusting materials differ considerably in this respect, depending principally upon the facility with which they can be decomposed at the temperatures encountered in a coal-dust explosion. Such stable materials as silica, anhydrite and flue-dust vary but slightly in their heat-absorbing capacities, the specific heats of minerals in general ranging between 0.19 and 0.22; on the other hand, gypsum and limestone, as well as certain argillaceous materials such as shale, adobe, etc., are capable of absorbing additional heat through their chemical dissociation, although, as will appear later, it is questionable whether the amount of heat thus absorbed, in the case of limestone, shale, and adobe, is large enough to have any practical value. As to the temperature developed by a coal-dust explosion, the Bureau of Mines reports one test in which gold foil was melted, and others in which silver foil was melted, but not gold; hence 1832° F. (1000° C.) seems a reasonable figure to assume for purposes of calculation. Normal temperature is taken as 68° F. (20°C.). The other fundamental data required for the computations as cited by various authorities, are as follows: [Specific heats Gypsum : 0.259 Calcium sulphate, anhydrous. . .190 Limestone 0.216 Lime 0.239 Clay, shale, silica, etc. usually not exceeding 0.220 Carbon dioxide .:0.217 Steam (at atmospheric pressure)0.500 Heats of formation CaSO4+2H2O-4.606 Kg-cal. per gram molecule, or 48.2 B:t:u.' per pound of gypsum.- CaO +C0,42.5 Kg.-cal. per gram molecule, or 765 B.t.u. per pound of limestone. Latent heat of vaporization of water. from and at 100°C.. 535.9 Kg.-cal. per kilogram (964.6 B.t.u. per pound).] Computations will be based on the Fahrenheit scale and British thermal units, as probably more familiar in the coal industry. First as to the inert materials: their heat-absorbing capacity per pound is simply the product of their specific heat, say 0.22, multiplied by the assumed rise in temperature, 1764° F., or 388 B.t.u. per pound. Gypsum, CaS0, 2H.0, though apparently perfectly dry, contains 21% of combined water. When gradually heated it will have liberated three-quarters of its water freely by the time it reaches 250° F.; the remaining one-quarter is retained to a somewhat higher temperature, but the last of it will have been expelled at 482° F. For calculating the total heat absorbed in raising gypsum (or its products) to the temperature of a coal-dust explosion, no serious error will be intro-

Jan 1, 1925