Search Documents

By N. H. Wetzel

Railroads, attempting to increase their tonnage without adding new lines, have for some time realized there is a definite relationship between increasd haulage efficiency, and constant communication with each moving unit that operates along their roadbeds. Elaborate radio communication equipment has been devised for this purpose, and is rapidly being installed. Coal mines are faced with similar haulage problems and have sought this constant contact through the use of telephone systems, and dispatcher stations. Often the fixed mine telephone system is unsatisfactory, since the desired person is not present at the phone when needed. Dispatchers lose contact with a motorman as soon as he is out of sight, until he calls in from another telephone. The recently developed frequency-modelated radio phone which makes use of the trolleywire network in a mine as a carrying medium, permits instant and continuous contact between dispatcher and locomotives. The motorman can immediately contact another motor or the dispatcher regardless, of his motor's position on the trollywire system, whether moving or standing.

Jan 1, 1948

A great many questions were asked Mr. Bright, and Mr. Bright's opinion was given on a number of subjects. He spoke at length on spring suspension of locomotives, bringing out the necessity for better spring suspension due to heavier weights and higher speeds now developed. The subject of dynamic braking was brought up, and the opinion of the engineers present was that dynamic braking was not a desirable feature except where heavy, long, adverse grade is encountered. Mr. Goddard and Mr. Bright had a spirited discussion regarding ball bearings, bringing out the opinion of the meeting that ball bearings in motors are preferable to sleeve bearings, and the few failures so far encountered are due to improper application or insufficient size of bearing. Mr. Shubart brought up the question of locomotive speed, mentioning some high speed work on main haulage, also an interesting experiment in a large Eastern mine where very slow speed, 3 1/2 miles per hour, gathering locomotives were substituted for the high speed gathering locomotives with an increase in cars gathered and a material decrease in derailment and accident. Mr. Bright mentioned the improvement in gathering reels, and Mr. Shubart mentioned the safety in the use of the concentric cable in direct current, using the outer wire as the ground wire, so that in case of accident to the cable, the ground wire acted as a protector to the live wire, materially decreasing the danger of sparking. Mr. H. I. Smith of the Bureau of Mines brought up the question of explosion proof construction, and Mr.. Bright and. Mr. Shubart explained the construction adopted by two of the larger manufacturers. Experiment has shown that the force of explosion in motors due to gas does not exceed 150 pounds per square inch. All forms of screen or baffles have proven an actual source of danger, due to the collection of dust, usually soaked in oil, forming an active means of propagating flame, together with the fact that all these appendages are frequently left off when the motors are repaired. Modern construction eliminates all openings, screens, devices for stopping or extinguishing flame. The motor is made entirely enclosed, practically air tight, all joints are ground and all openings necessary for access and attention are closed by bolted plates. The case is made stout enough to withstand any interior explosions, and ample ribbing is provided for heat dissipation. Mr. Bright was asked regarding the use of contactor control. He replied that his company is now recommending contactor controls for series and parallel starting on all locomotives of 13 tons and over, and particularly on the tandem units that are now becoming popular in coal mining work. The question of dynamic braking and reversing was brought up and Mr. Bright explained that this made a very complicated contactor installation but they had

Jan 1, 1922

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

Meeting called to order at 11:30 A. M., February 23, by the President: Horace Moses, in the Chair. W. D. Brennan moved that the present Secretary continue, and he furnished an assistant. Before the question was put, he suggested that Frank Sandstrom, of the Colorado-New Mexico Coal Operators' Association, would be a satisfactory assistant, and his motion was extended to include the election of Frank Sandstrom as Corresponding Secretary, subject to confirmation after completion of reorganization, with the present Secretary as Executive Secretary, and that a Committee be appointed, one member from each of the four states, to devise and put into execution a permanent financing and operating policy for the Institute. Seconded and carried. The Chairman appointed W. D. Breunan, A. C. Watts, J. B. Marks, P. J. Quealy, with the President of the Institute as Ex-officio member and chairman.

Jan 1, 1927

By Eugene McAuliffe

The labor turn-over at coal mines has long been a fertile subject for parade by complaining coal operators, the question invariably occupying a place of prominence in the list of disabilities that tend to increase the cost of producing coal, adding likewise to the now startling number of accidents that occur in coal mines. This disability, however, is like the weather question, which some humorist once remarked of by saying, "The weather is something we all talk about, but nobody does anything to improve it." Endless compilations covering the shift of employment by coal mine labor have been made and published, and while the actual loss expressed in cents per ton in cost of coal produced has never been determined, the fact remains that such represents a substantial item, taking the mines of the country as a whole. Efficiency engineers who have made studies covering the cost of breaking in and training each new man employed in certain manufacturing industries, fix same as averaging not less than $100.00 per man, and when the character of mine employment is given due consideration, including its ever-present hazards, the difficulty of close personal super- vision of individual employes, and the, at times, almost impossible ability to transmit to men of many diverse nationalities understandable instructions, it is quite safe to say that the cost of securing and breaking in new men for underground mine work will fully equal that suffered by the factory managements. When we speak of mine labor turnover we must necessarily exclude the enforced shifting about of men who are laid off by the closure of mines due to accident or lack of market, con- fining ourselves to the turn-over occasioned by- (a) the dismissal of individual men or groups of men; (b) the voluntary resignation of the individual workman. It is these two methods of severance that the employer and employe alike suffer from; the item "Unclaimed Wages" carried in the accounts of every large coal company illustrative of the "quit this job, get another one" attitude of many workmen, who frequently, when leaving, fail to claim small sums due them, while others, in turn, leave a train of debts, large and small, behind. There is' ample evidence abroad to the effect that many

Jan 1, 1925

By Richard L. Lawson

Thank you President Nielsen, and thank you ladies and gentlemen of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. I'm glad you asked me to join you a second time. The setting here at Tamarron is splendid. A few days ago the National Coal Association held its Diamond Anniversary meeting at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs. Although NCA is junior to this Institute in years, we do try to keep up. Our speakers looked at 1992 as the possible eve of a new era in world history - a pivotal year. It offers the opportunity to replace a dying era of war and tension with a new one of peace and prosperity built on economic cooperation and trade and, of course, energy to uphold all four - trade, cooperation, prosperity and peace. The Persian Gulf War was only a sample of what can happen to the other four if the energy isn't there. And so I especially like your theme: Energizing America With Coal. It is most pertinent. I was invited to discuss the National Energy Policy and its impact on coal and I intend to do that. But more important is coal's impact on the Nation and the world and so 1 shall discuss that as well. This year - 1992 -also will be pivotal in the Nation's politics.

Jan 1, 1992

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of Twenty-first Meeting 9 The U. S. Fuel Company's Tipple at the Hiawatha Mine John M. Jennings 11 Some Experiences With Mechanical Loading in Central Pennsylvania¬ O. G. Sharrer 13 Mechanical Loading Underground- A. W. Dickinson 25 Operation by Long-Face Conveyor Method at Sweetwater Mine Glen A. Knox 39 Discussion of Mechanical Loading 44 Discussion-Safety in Mechanical Loading 45 New Steel Tipple, Spring Canyon, Utah- G. A. Murphy 46 A Theory on the Cause of Spontaneous Combustion-C. P. Crawford... 48 Rock Dusting in the West-D. Harrington 50 Mudite-L. C. Clare 57 Discussion of Harrington's and Clare's Papers 59 Material for Rock Dust-Prepared Discussion-Edward K. Judd 60 Tipple and Mine of the Columbia Steel Corporation-T. C. Harvey 63 Mechanical Stoking of Domestic Fuel-Joseph Harrington 67 The Garrison Automatic Domestic Stoker-Lloyd Garrison 70 Discussion of Domestic Stokers 71]

Jan 1, 1925

A symposium concerning "The Image of the Coal Industry" was presented at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference center and chaired by Charles W. Margolf, RMCMl Program Chairman and Vice President, Western Coal Development, W. R. Grace & Co. MR. McKEEVER: I'd like to do one thing and that's to introduce our Program Chairman, Charlie Margolf, who will be handling this portion of the program. Charlie and I have been acquainted since late 1973. He has worked together with me on several projects at W. R. Grace here in the west; a dear friend and one that I just want to say thanks to again. I think I have a little token of that appreciation here for Charlie. Here you are Charlie. (present given) I turn the command over to you. Mr. Margolf, a native of State College, Pennsylvania, received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Industrial Engineering from Pennsylvania State University in 1950 and a Juris Doctor Degree from University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1953. His professional experience has beem as an attorney in the Law Department of Reynolds Metals Company, Richmond, Virginia, where he served as legal counsel to the Geological Department the mining subsidiaries of the parent company both foreign and domestic, the Power Department and the Oil and Gas Division. He was closely associated with Reynolds Mining Corporation's project at Lake DeSmet, Wyoming, from its inception in 1954 and became Manager of the Wyoming Division of Reynolds Mining Corporation when it was established in 1966, holding that position until September 1972 when he joined Cameron Engineers, Inc. of Denver, Colorado as Vice President in charge of its coal, water and environmental activities. Mr. Margolf joined W. R. Grace & Co. in January 1974 as Director of Western Coal Operations. Memberships are held in the Virginia Bar Association, the Wyoming Bar Association, the American Bar Association and its Section of Natural Resources Law, the Wyoming Engineering Society, the Colorado Mining Association, the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute which he has served as vice president for Wyoming, the Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, the Minerals Information Committee of the Denver Chapter of AIME and the Denver Coal Club which he has served as Chairman of its Board of Directors. He has also been a member of the Montana Coal Council and served as a director, the Wyoming Water Development Association which he has served as a director for industry and as first vice president and the Wyoming Mining Association. He has been reappointed by Governor Lamm to the Governor's Scientific Advisory Council. He was appointed by the Federal Power Commission, Gas Policy Advisory Council, to its Supply- Technical Advisory Task Force - Synthesized Gaseous Hydrocarbon Fuels and served as Vice Chairman of that Task Force. He has been reappointed by the Secretary of the Interior to the Solid Fuels Unit, Department of the Interior, National Defense Executive Reserve. He also serves on the Advisory Council to the Industrial Ecology Institute of the Colorado School of Mines and was recently elected a member of the Board of Directors of ROMCOE (Center for Environmental Problem Solving). Chairman Margolf presented the symposium from the perspective of: ? A local government official - The Honorable Michael Enzi, Mayor of Gillette, Wyoming ? A former state government official - Harris D. Sherman, former Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources ? A representative of a national environmental. organization- Robert Golten, Senior Counsel, National Wildlife Federation ? A representative of the printed news media- Ralph Looney, Editor of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver

Jan 1, 1982

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. Homer Hyatt, Safety Director, North American Coal Corporation, Western Division, Castle Gate, Utah. Mr. Hyatt introduced Mr. Richard F. Walker, Vice President, Engineer & Planning, Electric Department, Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Walker is a native of the State of Nebraska, a graduate of the University of Colorado with a BSEE degree in 1949. He has been associated with the Public Service Company of Colorado for almost twenty years and in the above capacity for the last one and one-half years. Mr. Walker?s subject was "Our New Plants and Coal. (See index for printed text of Mr. Walker's paper.) Mr. John F. O'Leary, Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. spoke on the ?High Cost of Economy.? Mr. O'Leary graduated from George Washington University in 1950 with a degree in Economics. In 1950, he joined the Bureau of Mines. In 1963 he was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mineral Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior. In 1967, he was appointed Chief, Bureau of Natural Gas, Federal Power Commission. In 1968, appointed Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.

Jan 1, 1969

The seventh Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1998 Institute convention at the Silvertree Hotel, in Snowmass Village, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Elliott Tsosie, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1998 a record number of 10 teams participated in the program. The teams were from the four western states of Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming and were comprised of about eight members each. Teams participating were BHP-La Plata Mine, BHP-Navajo Mine, BHP-San Juan Mine, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming; General Chemical, Green River, Wyoming; Jacobs Ranch Mine, Gillette, Wyoming; Powder River Coal Company-North Antelope/Rochelle, Gillette, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Hallsville, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River Wyoming, and Western Energy-Colstrip, Montana. The professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for over 90 participants and many observers. The evaluators were: Art Saenz and Tom Bass of Western Environmental Associates, Keith Mitchell and Jim Jennings of Emergency Services Detail; Mary Bailey of Mary Bailey Associates; and John Peleaux of Innovative Access. Teams are not given advance warning of what the problem will entail. They are provided the necessary details when they arrive at the scenario location and work to resolve the problem in an effective and efficient manner. [ ] Seven participants made up each team with an . eighth member as an alternate. Team trainers and other mine personnel traveled with the team from scenario to scenario providing support and encouragement. The teams were presented with four scenarios each day, involving High Angle Rescue, Low Angle Rescue/Medical, Hazmat, and Confined Space. All of the victims, except for one, were provided through the cooperative efforts of the Snowmass Fire Department, who also assisted with providing several evaluators. Snowmass Fire Department is to be commended for providing over 20 victims/evaluators each day to facilitate the evaluations. Training sessions were held Friday afternoon and Saturday evening to help the teams prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was held Friday evening for teams to trade hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers, etc. All mine rescue participants and spouses and registered families attended the Bar-B-Q on Sunday evening followed by an adult dance. [ ] Front row: Ray Blaisdell, Solvay; Gary Rasmussen, General Chemical; Spencer Thompson, Sabine; Jack Ervin, Western Energy. Back Row: Ken Kellywood, BHP Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP LaPlata; Elton Stanton, Jacobs Ranch; Travis Roy, Powder River Coal; Ron Neff, BHP San Juan; Steve Whaley, Bridger. Sponsors who contributed to the 1998 program financially were: Blue Mountain Energy, (Deserado Mine); Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, L.S.; and Western Environmental Associates. Glass trophy cups, with an etching of a Mine Rescue figure and the RMCMI Logo on cherry wood bases, were presented to the 10 team captains at the Monday Mine Rescue Awards Breakfast. Eight of the ten teams had a proficiency level of 3 and 2 teams achieved a proficiency level of 2.

Jan 1, 1998

Jan 1, 1953

Jan 1, 1963

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

Jan 1, 1929

CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Some of the members will want to question Mr. Farnham on some of the things he has brought tip, so we will throw the meeting open for discussion. I am quite sure Mr. Farnham will be willing and glad to answer any questions that may be put to him. MR. HOLMAN: I would like to ask Mr. Farnham a question in regard to the Duckbill: How wide a face will it operate without moving the bill? MR. FARNHAM: The Duckbill is a device that was developed in the Union Pacific Mine at Rock Springs, within the last few months, and it is shaped something like, a dustpan, with discharge throat in the rear. They made one seven feet wide and found it was too wide, and the one they are using now is between three and four feet in width. The front section of the conveyor, which attaches to the duckbill, meshes into it to form a sliding section, and the front end of the Duckbill is pushed by the upper segments. I saw one used in a room twenty-four feet wide, and they drew it back after they cleaned out one room and pushed it forward again. MR. HOLMAN: You have no arrangement other than ratchet work? MR. FARNHAM: The ratchet is for forward working and back; the sections are made 12 or 13 feet long, and the stroke of the conveyor automatically works the ratchet; they can ratchet it back; it is a hand device. MR. HOLMAN: They just swing the end of the conveyor across the face to pick up the loose coal? MR. FARNHAM: Yes; they are also planning to use it endwise along the panel face, that and the room work both are quite new in their application, and I do not think the Union Pacific is giving out any results as yet, because the system has not been in use long. MR. HOLMAN: We are planning on putting one in very shortly. MR. HALL: I understand they can swing it over 30 degrees one way or the other, and it goes the same way easily because of the continual jar of the back and forward motion on a 60-degree swing. SECRETARY SHUBART: Take on a comparatively long conveyor, you can get quite a sweep, a large part of the circle. The Duckbill could command quite a large range. For a 12-foot entry, take a four-foot wide advance through the middle of the shot coal, with a 12-foot advance, ratchet back, swing the Duckbill to the rib and repeat; but I do not think they could get as much as 60 degree. on the end of the Duckbill without curving further back. The conveyor is light and not normally set on any permanent foundation. I saw one of Mr. McCarty's first machines, a rather rudimentary one, clean tip a 12-trot entry, 21 tons of coal, in 16 minutes, three men at the face and one at the loading end. MR. FARNHAM: The average time to clean the entries is about an hour-to clean up good-it wouldn't take but a short time; that is why they get this record of several cuts a shift. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Farnham? MR. HOLMAN: We were discussing this entry driving in regard to the entry loader; an entry loader in advance work, just what you have to do to place the jackbars with the sheave-blocks? Do you dig along the ribs after the coal is shot or do you have any other scheme that could be worked out to a good advantage? MR. FARNHAM: This record is a report I have just received from our Chicago office, without the full details, which I have written for. I am sorry I cannot give you the details. This was an Indiana or Pennsylvania mine, near Pocahontas, not the one where they had an accident. I assume they set the jacks ahead and swung and dumped the coal partly out with a scoop and partly by hand, but the application for that for entry driving is entirely new. The reports stated that they anticipated using that as a standard method of entry driving in the future. I will be glad to see that you get a copy of it when I get the report completed. MR. MONAY: Mr. Shubart, did you say they loaded 12 tons in 16 minutes? SECRETARY SHUBART: Twenty-one tons. MR. MONAY: How long did it take to change the machinery out of there

Jan 1, 1926

By Scott Dupont

Due to the scarcity of miners, and the necessity of decreasing the cost of mining, the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Stag Canon Branch, at Dawson, [ ] New Mexico, decided to try, by various methods of mining, to increase the tonnage of coal mined per man, per day. With this in view, they first tried mining on a 250-foot face, maintaining the track at the face and using six to eight men shovel- [ ] ling. These men were able to aver age from ten to twelve tons each per, day when they were loading, but with

Jan 1, 1926

[President Vernal Mortensen Vice Presidents Colorado Charles W. Margolf Montana Art K. Neill New Mexico Robert Diederick North Dakota James A. Brown Utah Bernard Bernstrom Wyoming John T. Goodier Secretary-Treasurer Doris G. Finnie Executive Board Roy Coulson A. Z. Dimitroff Claude P. Heiner J. R. Kastler Loren V. Linville Shirl C. McArthur Ira E. McKeever, Jr. Ralph E. Moore Robert E. Murray V. O. Murray George A. Nugent John Peperakis John A. Reeves Max A. Robb Joe T. Taylor R. M. von Storch R. R. Williams, Jr. Robert W. Wilson Mike Zakotnik, Jr. Edward F. Ziolkowski]

Jan 1, 1982

By W. R. Deeths

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

Jan 1, 1984

The second annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Performance Evaluation was held in conjunction with the 1993 RMCMI Convention at Beaver Creek. [ ] Six teams participated in this year's evaluation; BHP Minerals, Navajo Mine, Fruitland. NM; BHP Minerals - LaPlata Mine. LaPlata, NM; BHP Minerals - San Juan Mine. Waterflow. NM; The Coteau Properties Company - Freedom Mine, Beulah. ND; Cordero Mining Company, Gillette, WY; and The Falkirk Mining Company - Falkirk Mine. Underwood, ND. The Western Energy Company of Colstrip, MT was represented through observers and evaluators. [ ] Realistic industrial related scenarios, closely simulating the stress of actual rescue incidents, were provided by members of the Eagle Valley Ambulance Service. Five different scenarios were presented to each team on the first day of the evaluation and three on the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the scenario site. The scenarios were going on simultaneously and each team was unaware of the circumstances until they entered the scene. Interested onlookers were afforded the opportunity of viewing the actual simulated rescue operations as they occurred. The teams received valuable pointers and direction from the ream of evaluators following each scenario. They were are also given the opportunity to observe the other teams in action and to meet with the members of all the teams to share information and ideas during team meetings per the predetermined schedule. The primary goal is to recognize current rescue skills, knowledge, and abilities of participating teams. In doing this, each team was provided with individual evaluations and a path for improvement as needed. Each team was recognized for their efforts at an awards breakfast on the final day of the evaluation. New innovations in rescue equipment were introduced and demonstrated for interested teams following the awards program. The importance of progressive training such as what we are witnessing at evaluations during the RMCMI conventions cannot be stressed strongly enough. These teams are the providers of immediate rescue and medical care for victims of accidents at their respective properties. Every mining operation has the potential for very serious accidents due to immense size of equipment and mining logistics. These rescue teams must be prepared to act with the most immediate, professional and knowledgeable actions to save lives and prevent further injuries. Safety is a primary concern of every mining operation and the mine site rescue team is an integral part of that safety effort. The evaluation program is very appreciative for the financial support of the following businesses to enable this program to continue: Safety Master, Acme Welding, North American Coal, Triune. Cummins, OK Tire. Modern Industrial, The Industrial Company, Mine Safety Appliances (MSA), Biomarine, Personal Safety Enterprises, Inc., and Blattner Construction, Thank you again for your much needed assistance. Plan to be a part of next year's Mine Rescue Evaluation Program as a participant or an observer. You will be amazed at the skill levels of the Rescue Teams. See you next year! Linda G. Ash The falkirk Mining Company [ ]

Jan 1, 1993

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