Search Documents

Amercable, Inc. Andalex Resources, Inc. ARCO Coal Company Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc. Colowyo Coal Co. L.P. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company Crane & Hoist Sales Crested Butte Mountain Resort Cyprus Amax Coal Co. Energy West Mining Company The Falkirk Mining Company Fleischli Oil Co. Inc. Halbach & Braun Industries Hemscheidt Corporation GH Henley Industries Ingersoll-Rand Co. Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K & P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation L & H Welding & Machine Co. McLanahan Corporation National Coal Association The North American Coal Corporation Northwestern Resources Company Peabody Western Coal Company Phillips Machine Service Pincock Allen & Holt Ramsey Technology, Inc. Rust Tractor Company Salt River Project Schroeder Industries Stamler Corporation TerraMatrix TIC (The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc.) Trapper Mining Inc. Wagner Equipment Company Western Energy Company Wheeler Machinery Company

Jan 1, 1994

By George B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of disasters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

[ALLISON, D. S.. ...................... ,1331 Roberta St., Salt-Lake City, Utah AMBLER, J. B.. ........ c-o Ambler & Riter, Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah ANDERSON, A. E.. ................ ,403 Midland Savings Bldg., Denver, Colo. ANDERSON, ARTHUR E.. .. .Colorado Utilities Corp., Steamboat Springs, Colo. ANDERSON, FRANK ........................................... Crosby, Wyo. ANGUS, WILLIAM.. ........... .99 South Downing St., Apt. 204, Denver, Colo. APPERSON, A. B.. ............................ .Tramway Bldg., Denver, Colo. ]

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1960

Public perceptions about coal remain neutral to negative But gains are slowly being made as the public becomes more aware of coal as ?abundant, affordable, and increasingly clean?

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1955

PRESIDENT MOSES.: The meeting will please come to order. Will you kindly state your names prior to making any statements, in order that we may deep the record straight? The first paper this morning is a joint one on vocational training, by D. W. Rockey, H. A. Tiemann and Wm. Moorhead. Mr. Rocdey. (Applause.) D. W. ROCKEY (State Superintendent, Industrial Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico) (Mr. Rocdey's notes not received in time for publication.) MR. TESCHER: I would like to ask you, Mr. Rocdey, you say you gave the Phelps-Dodge Corporation financial assistance; to just what extent was the State obligated, and how much assistance was given, etc.?

Jan 1, 1927

By Samuel Tescher

The operation of gaseous mines is a problem, due to the fact that we have not only the ordinary mine accidents to guard against, but have also the ever present menace of a mine disaster involving a large number of human lives, and the destruction of valuable property. In looking over the reports of mine disasters throughout the country in the past several years, we find that methane gas, coming in contact with an ignition agency of some kind, has been the source of at least 75 per cent of our mine explosions. Coal dust, of course, plays its part in propagating the explosive action throughout the mine workings and rendering it more violent and destructive; nevertheless, the initial ignition of a body of explosive gas-sometimes of very small volume-has been the primer for the large majority of our mine disasters. We find also, that the places of initial ignition are most frequently found at the working faces, or in close proximity thereto. This is mainly due to the following reasons: First-The working faces are, as a rule, the places where methane gas is most freely generated. Second: They are places that are most poorly ventilated. Third-They are the places where ignition agencies are most frequently found. The sources of ignition, as a rule, consist of naked lights, the shooting -of shots, defective flame safety lamps, and electrical arcs. The problem, then, in the operation of gaseous mines, is primarily to so ventilate the working faces that an explosive mixture is not likely to occur, and to endeavor to keep away from the working faces all sources of ignition. To do both of these things may seem impossible. Nevertheless, by working along both of these directions, a great many disasters can be avoided. The efficient ventilation of the working faces is paramount. By efficient ventilation, we mean the continuous passing of large volumes of air at the working faces. This can only be accomplished by adequate ventilating equipment, capable of being driven by at least two independent and distinct sources of power, together with large, clean, straight air courses which are free of short turns, constructed areas, and leaky doors and stoppings. In other words, furnish a suitable course for its travel through the mine. Many of us sharpen our pencils and rack our brains to properly estimate the proper size pump and pipe equipment that may be needed to handle a certain amount of water. We estimate the size of copper conductors to a nicety. We immediately rush to repair leaks in our water, compressed air or electric lines. But how many of us give serious thought to the travel of the air through our mines, the health and safety-giving fluid on which so much depends! In driving air courses, a certain economical cross-sectional area should be adopted and maintained as standard. When turns are necessary, they should be made with long radius curves, and the cross-sectional area should be increased on the curves. All entry stoppings should preferably be built of monolithic concrete, with suitable hitches into floor and ribs, and after the concrete has set, they should be examined and leaks due to shrinkage and settling should be eliminated. Overcasts and their approaches should have cross-sectional areas larger than the entries leading to them, to allow for the sudden change of direction, bearing in mind that air wants to travel in straight lines. In the early development of a property, ample provision should be made in the size of the main entry pillars to allow for the driving of additional

Jan 1, 1925

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 43 Denver Tech Center, Englewood, Colo. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., Box 2331, Denver, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Aggen, Marshall J Marathon LeTourneau Co., Rt. 4, Box 1188, Henderson, Texas Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club Bldg., Denver, Colo. Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 So. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Alford, Eugene C Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., 2025 TenMain Center, Kansas City, Missouri Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliance Co., 5708 East 7th St., Tucson, Arizona Alston, George Mine Safety Appliances Co., 400 Penn Center Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pa. Amerman, Richard W Utah International, Inc., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mex. Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., Drawer M, Price, Utah Anderson, John S Utah International, Inc., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1973

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Past President, R. R. Williams, Jr., Manager of Mines, The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, who introduced the President, W. K. Dennison, Jr., Superintendent, Raton Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Raton, New Mexico. His speech of welcome to the Institute follows: The President's Remarks Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you to the 56th regular meeting of the Institute. A look at the program will show that the various chairmen and their committees, headed by General Chairman A. Z. Dimitroff, have been hard at work to prepare a program which I am sure you will find to be informative as well as entertaining. I think that a special vote of thanks and appreciation is due Glenn Sorensen, who stepped in to head the Program Committee when Clint Cornelius moved from this area.

Jan 1, 1960

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

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

DM&E PRB Project [ ] DM&E HISTORICAL MILESTONES ?Start-up in 1986 (former C&NW). ?Colony Line acquisition in 1996 (from UP). ?PRB Project Announcement in 1997 ?IC&E Acquisition in 2002 (former CP/IMRL). ?FRA Federal Refinancing in 2003 (RRIF-1).

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 2009

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

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

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 T. C. Harvey

Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. J. M. Jennings, chairman of the General Committee on arrangements during the convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute here, I have endeavored to prepare a brief description of the Columbia Steel Corporation's tipple at Columbia, Utah, and its operations, but [ ] from the fact that you have already listened to, and have been interested I'm sure, in the description given by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Murphy, on tipple construction and operations, I am taking the liberty, with your permission, to embody in my paper a description of our haulage and ventilation systems at Columbia, which I hope will be, in a measure, also interesting to you. As many of you know, we are mining on a Multiple Panel System, which while comparatively new in Carbon County, is being used successfully in various mining districts of the United States. Mine The Columbia mine is situated about four miles south of Sunnyside, Utah, at an elevation of 6,760 feet at the portal or main entrance of mine. [ ] From this portal, the main air intake or solid rock tunnel, about 1,600 feet long, runs into the mountain in an easterly direction to an intersection of the coal vein on a grade of 0.5 of one per cent in favor of the loads. There this main entry divides and forms two main entries. These are run in parallel with 100-foot chain pillars between them and protected with 150-foot barrier pillars on each side, and run into the coal in a southerly direction on a 0.5 of one per cent grade in favor of the loads for a dis-

Jan 1, 1925