Search Documents

Jan 1, 1954

By John Pfisterer

Leadership Priorities in a New Business Environment ?Komatsu Equipment Company ?Health and Safety of Our Workforce ?The Green Economy & Market Challenges ?Equipment Trends ?Our Business Approach

Jan 1, 2009

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1956

By Robert E. Hanes

Coal Perspectives We are the ?Saudi Arabia of Coal Reserves? (Billions of Short Tons) [ ] However, China & India have added approximately one half of the U.S. installed base capacity for electrical generation, in TWO YEARS ? and it took us some 50-60 years to install our coal fleet.

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1962

Jan 1, 1952

By D. Harrington

E. H. DENNY (United States Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado) In the absence of Mr. Harrington it is my privilege to read his paper, which is in his usual, forcible and sincere style, and it is within the province of this Institute, certainly, to go into it as it concerns safety and efficiency in mining. He brings out some points in his paper that, I think, are well worth the consideration of the Institute. The figures he uses were compiled by Mr. Adams, of the Bureau, and cover a five-year period. However, examination of similar Bureau figures for a ten-year period, or any other long period on other bases brings out similar results. The figures in this paper have been based on the million hours of exposure of accidents, and the figures based on three hundred working-man-day basis, or on tonnage, brings out similar results. This paper is entitled "Accident Record in Western Mines," and it is, in a way, an amplification of Mr. Harrington's letter which was read at the Glenwood Springs Meeting.

Jan 1, 1927

[JOHN B. MARKS President Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado H. H. BUBB Vice-President for Colorado Cokedale, Colorado W. J. REID Vice-President for Utah Wattis, Utah WM. MOORHEAD Vice-President for New Mexico Dawson, N. M. GOMER REESE Vice-President for Wyoming Frontier, Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: E. H. McCLEARY Alamo SAMUEL TESCHER Denver UTAH: DAVE BROWN :Storrs JOHN JENNINGS Hiawatha NEW MEXICO: JAS. McDOUGALL Van Houten GEO. MIKSCH Gallup WYOMING: T. H. BUTLER Hanna L. A. NORMAN Sheridan]

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1973

[ ]

Jan 1, 1990

Jan 1, 1953

[ACC, Inc. Bucyrus-Erie Company CINCO (Coal Industry Consultants, Inc.) Coal Magazine Colowyo Coal Company Coors Ceramic Company Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Power. Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coral Company Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company Energy Fuels Corporation FMC Corp.- MHE Division Ford. Bacon & Davis Inc. T.J. Gundlach Machine Company Hemscheidt American Corp. GH Hensley Industries Honnen Equipment Company Jennmar Corporation Soy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corp. McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company Peabody coal Company Pitrsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Pyramid Parts, Div. American Alloy Ramsey Technology. Inc. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Scandura. Inc. Tamarron Resort TIC (The Industrial Company) Tribol Utah Power & Light Western Energy Company]

Jan 1, 1988

By C. H. Trik

Any article or discussion on the ventilation of Working Faces under different systems of concentrated mining is of little value to any practical man unless based upon facts gleaned from actual experience, and empirical data on this subject is, to say the least mighty scarce. Of this one thing, however, you can rest assured, the old cry of "no air at the working faces" will have become a thing of the past. No longer will we hear of some operator who has been too eager to get out the coal and who has lost sight of everything else in his mad dash for production, digging himself shut until his airways are mere pin- points and his air current a feeble thing, too weak to combat the high resistance of his restricted mine. A mine operating under one or more of the various systems of concentrated mining should always have plenty of air, for in concentrated mining the tendency is toward greatly reduced mine resistances due to increased sectional areas. It can readily be seen that the tendency is to large, wide areas across the panel and where this is true large volumes and low gauges are the rule, unless inordinate restriction is encountered in the permanent airways, and no operator, far sighted or progressive enough to adopt this system of mining when his conditions permit, would ever allow his main airways both intake and return, to be anything but model courses. As a matter of .fact, we are likely to encounter the opposite of what is usually the case in most mines to day. We are apt to find the air at the working faces sluggish due to the large areas of passage rather than to high resistance. This is combated in. various ways which will be discussed further along in this article. Those companies, of which we have knowledge in this country who, to- day are using any of the new systems of mining, seem to proceed alike in the general method of developing their acreage. Let us assume, for this discussion, the Utah Colorado Coal Corporation is going to open a mine under the new system and their conditions are such as to permit their adopting the simple block system, each face served by a separate machine, each entry having its conveyor to the cars. After the permanent haulage and airways are driven "narrow work" starts to shape the blocks. We are not interested in the length of these "conveyor headings" since we do not need to drive breakthroughs nor build stoppings for ventilation until we have reached their end when we connect them together. We have two methods of sending air to the face of these dead ends. We can laboriously and expeilsively install brattice cloth, as we go, or we can use a small auxiliary blower with canvas tubing to the face. Indeed I may say that one of the great difficulties encountered under the new systems is in the ventilation of these narrow faces. After they have been connected and an air circuit or current established, ventilation becomes plain sailing until the block is worked out. The auxiliary blower when used with flexible canvas tubing, has been found to be the ideal answer to the question of how to ventilate the headings which are anywhere from 100 to 1,000 feet long. These small blowers when properly used, can go a very long way to assist in further reducing the cost of production already assured by the new method of mining. Right angle bends are made by the tubing manufacturers to enable the fan to sit in the fresh air current, yet out of the way of operations and any recirculation is positively avoided by blowing the air around the corner to the face.

Jan 1, 1926

[Adams, E. R Rock Springs, Wyoming Adams, V. H. 422 East San Miguel Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado Allen, Earl W 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B . Box 1920, Denver 1. Colorado Allen, Thomas Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado Alston, G. L Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ambler, J. B Box 591, Denver, Colorado Apperson, A. B. 394 Elm Street, Denver 7, Colorado Arnett, L. L. 325 North First West, Price, Utah Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audin, Clement, Jr Paonia, Colorado Audin, Clement, Sr Box 627, Paonia, Colorado Audin, Ralph Box 285, Somerset, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1952

David Wolach RMCI PRESIDENT 2001-2002 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 98th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 2002 Breckenridge, Colorado

Jan 1, 2001

By W. R. Deeths

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

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1992

Jan 1, 1952

By J. H. Emrick

When I was asked to read a paper to you, I wondered what idea I could bring before you which would be interesting and which would be helpful in your work in operating coal mines. The Institute has been studying ways and means of increasing the safety and efficiency of mine operations. Almost every subject along this line has been discussed from time to time. In thinking the matter over it occurred to me that there was one thing used by practically all coal mining companies in considerably large quantities and which in many cases does not receive the attention it should. It is the cutter bit placed in the cutter chains on coal mining machines. Coal mining machines have been repeatedly improved during the last twenty-five years until their efficiency and convenience have reached a high level. The generating units making electrical power to operate them also have been developed to a similar degree. This machinery has been in- stalled at a great expense to coal mining companies and the installation made for the sole purpose of pulling coal cutter bits through coal. Why not then give these cutter bits some attention so as to see that they do their work as efficiently as their driving and propelling units? The consideration of this question easily divides itself into three principal parts-First, the kina of steel out of which to make the bit; Second, the proper form or shape to give it; and Third, the tempering of the bit. Let us discuss them in that order. There have been tried at different times' various grades of steel for cutter bit uses. The cheaper steels, having a very low carbon content (.10 to .30 per cent carbon) have proved un- satisfactory because such steel cannot be tempered so as to produce a satisfactory cutting tool. Because of the low carbon content, it cannot be hardened to retain its cutting edge. It dulls quickly, bends easily on striking any hard obstruction in the coal, and so requires constant resetting to its original form. The high priced alloy steels when properly shaped and tempered will give a bit that would make a clean, even cut in the coal if no impurities were encountered. Such a condition is rarely found. Alloy steel is quite brittle and on striking impurities, such as sulphur balls or a sand spar, is readily broken and so the loss of material through these broken bits and the high price paid for it more than offset all the other advantages which this steel has shown in cutting. Experience has shown that steel having approximately .70 per cent carbon and from .25 to .35 per cent manganese will give the most economical results. Some mines have obtained better results by using a steel of slightly higher carbon content and in some cases a grade of tool steel has been used. The disadvantage of using a steel having too much carbon is that it can easily be spoiled in the black- smith shop by overheating. Steels having a carbon content of about .70 per cent have a sufficiently wide range of temperatures at which they can be forged and hardened so that with ordinary care and attention they are not likely to be burned. Steel of this quality, therefore, has been found to be the most practicable because of its reasonable cost, ease in working and tempering and general durability. In the early days of mining machines, comparatively few bits were used because each machine required but a few bits because there were but

Jan 1, 1925