Search Documents

MINUTES OF MEETING, AUGUST 27, 1923. Meeting called to order at 10:00 a. m, by the President, George B. Pryde. In the opening remarks Mr. Pryde commented on the Kemmerer disaster, making the work of the Institute particularly important, the desirability of using a more up-to-date emblem for the Institute, the formation of local chapters. The minutes of previous meeting were presented by the Secretary in connection with our publication. Announcements were made regarding the program. Under reports of officers, no reports were made. No reports of standing committees. Report of Special Safety Committee was postponed for a full session, August 28th. There was no further business. Under the head of new business, the following names were proposed and accepted for membership: J. P. Russell, Salt Lake City, Utah, W. A. LaPierre, Salt Lake City, Utah, G. A. Schultz, Latuda, Utah, W. A. Seyffert, Salt Lake City, Utah, P. C. Bunning, Rock Springs, Wyoming, F. L. Gates, Superior, Wyoming, F. C. Miller, Trinidad, Colorado, G. B. Parker, Trinidad, Colorado, Robert Williams, Jr., Somerset, Colorado, F. L. McCarty, Rock Springs, Wyoming,

Jan 1, 1923

The twenty-fifth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11 a. m. Monday, August 29, 1927, in the County Court House at Trinidad, Colorado, the Vice-President, F. L. Peart, presiding. After a few words from John F. Carmody, Editor of Goal Age, J. Q. McNatt, Division Engineer of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, read a paper on "Coal Geology." In the afternoon, Prof. C. B. Carpenter, of the Colorado School of Mines talked on the work in Fuel Engineering being developed at the Colorado School of Mines. W. C. Holman, of the Phelps Dodge Corporation, then read his paper on "Developing a Pit Car Design." L. M. Kuhns, Safety Engineer of the Gallup American Coal Company, read his paper on "Safety Methods at Gallup American No. 5 Mine." After discussion the meeting adjourned for the day.

Jan 1, 1927

By Bill Gray

Jan 1, 2008

The 81 st Regular Meeting and convention was called to order by the President, Charles W. Margolf at 9:00 a.m. Monday, July l, 1985 in the Silverton Room of Tamarron, a resort hotel near Durango, Colorado. President Margolf welcomed the members and others in attendance to the convention and noted his theme of "Make It Happen!" He introduced those present of the 1985-86 Board of Directors and Officers who were elected by the Board of Directors at their Annual Meeting June 29. They were: Arthur K. Neill, President; Bernard Bernstrom, President-Elect; Loren V. Linville, Convention Liaison Officer; Vice Presidents Douglas J. Hammer of Colorado, C. Joe Presley of Montana, Alva L. Smith of New Mexico, Fred Wertz of North Dakota, Rex Berry of Utah and Thomas J. Lien of Wyoming; and Doris G. Finnie, Executive Secretary & Treasurer. He also introduced Ira. E. McKeever who was elected to serve as chairman of the Advisory Board by that group. Margolf mentioned that one three-year term as a Director would be voted upon at the annual business meeting which would be held Tuesday, July 2 at 1:30 p.m. in the Windom Peak Room and introduced James "Doug" Ingram, the nominee of the Nominating Committee. A convention update was made by the Conven-

Jan 1, 1985

The Wednesday morning session started with a film "The Greatest Good" presented by the Colorado Mining Association, courtesy of A. George Setter. President Joe Taylor opened the business meeting at 9:30 a.m. He called for a report from the Auditing Committee. The report was read and a motion was made for approval. It was made, seconded and approved. The report from the Resolutions Committee was submitted by Mr. Robert Delaney, Chairman of the committee. It reads as follows: RESOLVED: Whereas, in the year since the last convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry generally have suffered the loss through death of the services of:

Jan 1, 1968

The eighth annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1999 Institute convention at the Crested Butte Marriott Resort, Colorado. [ ] Elliott Tsosie, Mary Rowell, Janna Aune, Guy Horton, Art Saenz and Bill Balaz were pleased with the 1999 Mine Rescue Program, The Mine Rescue committee is but one of 17 volunteer committees; this one co-chaired by Bill Balaz, Elliott Tsosie and Janna Aune. There were three evaluators, Art Saenz, Western Environmental; Mary Rowell, ProCare and Guy Horton, Horton Rope Rescue. Nine teams participated and brought 89 participants, 26 spouses, nine children and five teens. The teams were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navajo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, NM; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, WY; The Coteau Properties Co., Beulah, ND; Northwestern Resources, Jewett, TX; Powder River Coal Co., Gillette, WY; Solvay Minerals, Green River, WY and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, MT. To observe were members from Centralia Mining Co., Centralia, WA. [ ] Evaluators: Mary Rowell, Guy Horton &Art Saenz The three professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for the Mine Rescue participants on the grounds of the resort property. Some attending convention were alarmed to see stretchers with "victims" and phoned the hotel switchboard to report the catastrophe. Team members had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios might be and derails were provided only as they arrived at the scenario location, with one exception. Seven to ten or more articipants make up each team. Some teams also ring an alternate and team trainer. For identification purposes, the "victims" wore white shirts emblazoned both front and back with a red VICTIM designation. There was a staged demonstration by three response teams who had not previously worked together. This was enacted on the convention floor following a Technical Session meeting attended by about 200 members. Three response teams from BHP's Navajo and San Juan Mines together with Coteau Properties' Freedom Mine provided a demonstration of their response skills. For never having worked together before, they presented a very professional enactment. This is described at length in the Welcome Session copy. Training sessions were held Saturday and Sunday to enable the teams to prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was Saturday evening for teams to swap hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers etc. Each participant received a royal blue golf shirt and ivory cap with royal blue bill. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning Awards breakfast when teams were presented with jade acrylic plaques. [ ] Teams participating in the Mine Rescue Evaluation received trophies on Tuesday morning. The captains above represent BHP-La Plata, BHP-Navajo, BHP¬San Juan, Bridger Coal Co., The Coteau Properties Co., Powder River Coal Co., Solvay Minerals, and Western Energy Co. Sponsors who contributed financially to the 1999 Mine Rescue program were Balaz & Associates, CMC, Civil Constructors, Colstrip Electric, Farmington Fire Equipment & Safety, Fisher Safety, Flanders Ellctric Motor Service, Magnum Metals, Richard Palmtag, Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, Sedona Consulting and Western Water Consultants. [ ] Evaluator Art Saenz likes to have the upper hand and will take whatever steps necessary to get it.

Jan 1, 1999

The Sixtieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:10 a.m. by Past President Mike Zakotnik, Jr., General Superintendent, The Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming. Mike introduced Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals and Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah; and President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. President's Address Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Min- ing Institute, guests, visitors and friends: I feel this is a distinct honor to talk to you on the occasion of this 60th regular meeting of the Institute. I once assumed this would be the Institute's 60th birthday, but later found that the first meeting was held in the State Capitol at Denver on November 12, 1912, at which time a comparatively small group of operators duly organized the Institute; a Mr. Weitzel of Colorado Fuel & Iron Company was then elected president and our late and dearly remembered Fred W. Whiteside, whose wife Gussie now carries Fred's work forward, was elected secretary. From Fred's records, early meetings were held semi-annually at rather irregular intervals, so that this 60th meeting is approximately the 52nd birthday of the organization and I am number 44 to serve as president. This latter development, I am sure, was conjured up last year by certain members at Glenwood Springs when I was absent. Anyway, I am honored and trust 'that these sessions will be both interesting and instructive in helping us on our way in the coal business.

Jan 1, 1964

By D. C. McKeehan

The use of electric power was introduced in this field in the year 1892. The initial installation being an engine-driven generator and one nine-ton haulage locomotive using 500-volts direct current. Reference to this locomotive appears in the issue of COAL AGE for February 24, 1921. For a large coal field, the conversion to electricity has been very complete, there being no compressed air machines in service and but one steam driven hoist, that at No. 1o mine and located within fifty feet of the present power plant boiler room. Two eight-ton haulage locomotives, installed in 1896 and still in use, justifies the service and the equipment. These mines used the pioneer types of electric cutting and drilling machines, the story of which is, no doubt, familiar to you. The extensive use of electric power began in 1900, when there was installed four 400 k.w., 500-volt direct current engine-driven generators. These were cross-compound machines and operated non-condensing. By 1910 the mines had developed main haulage entries of several miles in length and a working territory of about six square miles in area. The necessity of supplying adequate power at the working face required a local power supply from motor-generator sets in various parts of the mine to supplement the power furnished by the engine-driven generators. The power to these motor-generator sets was supplied by a 300 k.w. high pressure non-condensing turbo-generator delivering 2300 volts, 60 cycle, three-phase current. This marks the beginning of the use of alternating current for mining purposes. In 1913 new mines were being developed at Reliance, seven miles distant, and the plant was enlarged to accommodate a 750 k.w. low pressure, condensing turbine, utilizing the exhaust steam from the cross-compound engines and the 300 k.w. turbine. Transformers were installed for supplying Reliance with power at 13,200 volts. In the course of time the old engines began to dismantle themselves by throwing various pieces, such as cylinder heads, about the building, damaging walls and switchboards, and created a general feeling of unrest among those who had to do with power production. The limitations of the old engines that had given admirable service for ten years were recognized. The source of exhaust steam became questionable and in 1915, a 1000 k.w. high pressure condensing turbine was installed in order that a more general use could be made of motor-generator sets for the direct current supply. The plant at that time containing a 1000 k.w., a 750 k.w., and a 300 k.w., in alternating current generators, supplemented

Jan 1, 1921

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Before we open the discussion on the Utah mining laws, I want to bring out what I consider a slight misunderstanding on some of the things that I said this forenoon relative to our comparison of accidents. I did not mean to infer that we, as mine officials, are satisfied we have done the best we can to eliminate the accidents, when I was talking about a four-to- one comparison. I do not want any- one to get the idea in their heads that I do not think we are doing all we can. There is not any of us who can state that, even if we better these figures. It is the general understanding that these figures are based upon ratios per thousand man shifts and not upon the tonnage basis that we use. If it were based upon a tonnage basis, I think the figures would be pretty nearly reversed, for we are producing from two to four tons more per man than they do in Great Britain. The discussion will now be continued as I said this morning. There is a gentleman in the audience here that is as guilty of making these laws as I was, and I am quite sure when speaking he will confine himself to the subject of Utah Mining Laws and the prospective results. Before Mr. Monay starts with his paper, I want it understood that this discussion must be finished by 2:30 for the reason that we have still quite a lot of business before us this afternoon.

Jan 1, 1925

By Richard M. Whiting

Thank you very much for that introduction. I spent part of my early career in the coal industry here in Colorado, and I am always happy to return. In such a beautiful setting, it seems out of place to talk about "Improving the Climate". But in our work-a-day worlds, we know the climate for the coal industry is something less than picture perfect. But unlike Mother Nature's climate, there are some things we can do about the climate for coal. Today, I want to talk to you about sonic of the activities that we are engaged in... and that you can support... to improve that climate. A number of challenges and opportunities face our industry. I will try to set the stage for this conference by briefly describing the current climate for coal - which is indeed very challenging. I will then outline some of the steps we are taking to broaden our base to include our allies in the rail and electricity industries and the public at large.

Jan 1, 2000

MR. SHUBART: Mr. Miller's paper mentioned the two processes that seemed to be a success, the Smith process and the Piron process. I suppose the main difference is this, that Smith's process is to furnish domestic fuel and the by-products while the Piron process that Ford is installing is for fuel for power plants. I would like to ask Mr. Miller something about the commercial cost of the process. With the briquette you must make it cheap enough to sell. What are the commercial possibilities of Smith's briquette? MR. MILLER: It is pretty hard to say what the cost would be at this time, owing to the fact that slack has advanced double, or even more at the time I was in New York with the plant, but at that time it was costing $1.10 for the operation. You can add to that, of course, the cost of the coke. One dollar and ten cents was the entire cost of plant operation. It takes about one and one-half tons of coal to make a ton of briquettes. One dollar and ten cents takes care of all the material, cost, labor, handling, etc. Labor was much cheaper then. I would say it would cost about $2.20 now. The cost of coal is what you can buy it for on the market. I don't think, however, that the carbocoal process will ever meet with any great favor for the simple reason that it is really a prepared fancy fuel. It is going to be nice for people in offices where they want a grate or for families where they want a nice clean fuel. It leaves no stain on the fingers, no odor to it. It seems in carbonizing coal we change the carbon molecule. For instance, we are all familiar with the diamond. It is carbon, yet it requires a tremendous heat to burn a common little diamond. But you can set a piece of charcoal afire, which is also carbon, with a match. The molecular form has been changed in carbonizing coal, i. e., it is larger. Carbocoal will fire very readily, it can be started with a piece' of paper. I think the Piron process will be the process, i. e., to simply take out the tars and light oils, then fire direct-have the distillate plants right on the job. CHAIR: Can Mr. Shubart tell us something of the mechanical part of the Piron process? MR. SHUBART: The Piron process is of interest because Mr. Ford is taking it up. He has made so few mechanical mistakes it makes us feel that it is a success. Piron is a chemist of high accomplishment and reputation. The thing about the proces is its simplicity. Mr. Smith's is a very elaborate process, but Piron has gotten around all that. Piron feeds the raw coal in at about one-half inch mesh or smaller. He feeds it into a retort about 55 feet long, 16 feet wide over all. He has a hearth about 6 feet wide and the length of the retort. The base of the hearth that carries the coal is a conveyor, a flat cast iron conveyor, a very massive affair, very accurately made, so that there is no loss of coal. Between the upper and lower strands of the ' conveyor is a bath of molten lead which gives an accurate control of temperature. For best results he must have temperature of not under 800 F., not over 1,300 degrees F., about 1,100 or 1,200 F. seems to be ideal for getting greatest yield of oils and the best tars and other by-products. This lead bath has a system of flues running through it that

Jan 1, 1923

PRESIDENT PRYDE: I am sure we have all listened with interest to the presentation of this subject. Anything that promises economy in coal mining today is welcomed by all of us. We will now have a discussion on this paper. If any of you gentlemen want to ask any questions, you may do so. I think we will develop something of interest and along the lines of economy. That is the first consideration of a coal mining man. MR. H. D. RANDALL: It is an interesting fact that in manufacturing we find the greatest economy results from giving a man the simplest possible act to perform, while there is nothing too complicated for a machine. If we want to put up a set screw we find it cheaper to let one man set it up and the other screw it in. The maximum economy is what we are after. Similarly, one of the points of greatest interest which Mr. Ickis has emphasized, is that this automatic equipment not merely dispenses with a manual operator, but also performs certain functions which the operator cannot do. It provides an inherent protection to the apparatus and service not possible under manual operation. We very rarely have cases of failure with these automatic equipments, .and consequently have the advantage not only of having eliminated the operator's salary, but also his mistakes. We have had a large number of these equipments in use for several years, so that their practicality is now thoroughly proven, and the trend of practice now indicates that the automatic idea will be further extended and will become universal for such classes of service. MR. D. C. McKEEHAN (Union Pacific Coal Company) : My notion of an automatic sub-station is one that does not necessarily require new equipment beyond the control equipment; so that any of you that are interested in it can take up with the manufacturers and find out how much it would cost to change any equipment. The greatest point I think is the fact it eliminates the several nationalities from operating the set, either on day shift or night shift. They can so lock the control as to make it impossible for anyone to start or stop it, except the one who has the authority. Another point I do not believe was brought out very clearly: It would be particularly advantageous to people who buy power, and if you could have several sets in parallel, it would allow you to start the shift with one set and cut in the additional sets as the shift progresses. There are various operations that stop at the end of each shift, and-one or two or three sets can be cut out, leaving the load on one set, providing the size of the copper is sufficient to supply all the points of the mine. Another point I want to bring out: In case you have quite a number of sets distributed along transmission line, the switch trips, the operation restores the service, and you may have several hundred-or in case with us, we would have several thousand-K. V. A. of Motor Generator Sets and Rotaries, that would be starting at once, and the switch would automatically trip out again. MR. RANDALL: Another form of control was described as the so-called supervisory control. This control could be started up so the starting would not be synchronous, but could be spread out over a sequence. MR. McKEEHAN: I think that is rather a theoretical consideration for coal miners. They are standing at the controller ready to shut it off unless there is some selective method of starting various sets- MR. RANDALL: I had in mind this supervisory control, one man, a central operator who would determine which station should start and he would take time enough to have his load come on gradually. He would not permit all the installations to come on simultaneously, but come on in succession: MR. McKEEHAN: You misunderstand me. Suppose we had the main switch at Rock Springs, which supplies several camps, and there are several

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1926

The 67th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the C'est Bon Hotel, Park City, Utah, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Company, Carbondale, Colorado. Mr. Reeves introduced President Max A. Robb and read a brief biography as follows: A Westerner by birth, he has chosen to pursue his mining career with United States Fuel Company, a subsidiary of United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company. United States Fuel Company is the largest underground producer of commercial and utility coal in the Intermountain West. Max attended Utah schools and has kept his education current through correspondence courses in mining technology and business education, and through attendance at various university-sponsored development seminars.

Jan 1, 1971

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

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

Jan 1, 1957

By Charles Gottschalk

Some time after my arrival in Rock Springs to fill a short engagement with The Union Pacific Coal Company, Mr. Dickinson informed me that he had placed me on the program for a paper entitled "Mechanical Loading in Indiana." Since development of mechanical loading operations on a genuine coal producing basis for that section began near Oakland City, Indiana, and rapidly spread over Southern Indiana, Western Kentucky and Southern Illinois simultaneously, the results referred to are in many ways common to all three states. Prior to December, 1922, several attempts at mechanical loading had been registered, notably among which were installations of the Jeffry Entry Driver, and the Meyers-Whaley loader. The object of most of these earlier installations was quick development rather than lower production costs in face loading. In this measure it is claimed the machines were at least partially satisfactory. Three items which seemed to delay rapid progress in the adoption of either machine were, excessive first cost, height of coal seam necessary, and timidity of the operator relative to the labor situation which might develop. When the Joy machine was put on the market in the form of the 4-B.U., with a clearance overall which would perform in coal slightly under five feet in height, and at a cost price of less than one-half that of other machines being sold, many operators were at once ready to take a chance along with the manufacturer. This desire was accentuated by the difficulty to operate coal mines at all at prevailing production costs. This condition also made the coal miner more receptive to machinery which would give added employment to the field. At the convention held in Cincinnati during May, Mr. .Joy stated that about 200 of his machines were in operation at that time. Mr. Whaley said that about 40 of his were in use in coal mines. It is probable that of the above sum 75 machines were installed in Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky. Since that time, possibly 50 more machines of later design have been added. Like many of our troubles, those which seemed most difficult to overcome, proved in the end to have been least of all, and in this case the sup¬posed resistance which labor would advance has been more or less imaginary. In Illinois and Indiana a scale of wages is being accepted which is consistent with average earnings of machine men. The fact that a large number of coal operators want and are buying more loading machines has encouraged mining machinery manufcturers on every hand to devote renewed vigor to the cause and it is generally understood that new types and models are being developed both in factories and mines with the coal industry eager always to see the latest development. I understand that at present the Goodman, the Jeffry, and the Sullivan machinery companies are each offering new designs to meet Indiana and Illinois requirements. It is not strange that with so many installations many were made as a result of an impulse to ride the band wagon without any serious attempt to study the results or draw any conclusions from the experiences of others with loading machinery.

Jan 1, 1924

The thirty-first regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11: 10 o'clock A. M., Wednesday, June 22nd, 1932, President T. H. Butler presiding. The Honorable Louis Marcus, Mayor of Salt Lake City, delivered the address of welcome. On motion of W. H. Bachman and seconded by D. J. Parker, it was voted that, inasmuch as the Minutes are printed in the annual bulletin, the reading of them be dispensed with. The President made his annual report. The Secretary-Treasurer made his annual report of the financial condition of the Institute. R. Dawson Hall addressed the meeting. The following committees were appointed by the President: Auditing-L. P. Pearce, Chairman; Joseph, Parmley, R. R. Knill. Nominating John Emrick, Chairman; D. J. Parker, John Marks. Resolutions-D. R. Wilson, Chairman; H. Petersen, Robert Williams, Jr. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was adjourned at 11: 55 o'clock A. M.

Jan 1, 1932

The Fortieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order in the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, Wednesday, June 10, 1942, at 11:30 a.m., by President, Wetzel, who presented Mr. William A. Fealey who, in turn, introduced Mr. Bracken Lee, Mayor of Price, Utah, who made the address of welcome. President Wetzel then made a few remarks. The Secretary announced with regret that, due to the critical illness of Mr. Sidney Hale, he would be unable to at- tend the meeting. On motion of Charles M. Schloss, duly seconded and carried, the reading of the minutes of the Thirty-ninth Regular Meeting was dispensed with. Mr. Schloss also moved that the Chair appoint the usual committees, which motion was seconded and carried. President Wetzel then announced that the committees would be appointed during the afternoon session. Following routine announcements, the meeting recessed at 12 o'clock noon to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

Jan 1, 1942

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