Search Documents

President Heiner opened the final session of the Institute at 9:30 a.m. Frances Leonard read the report of the Auditing Committee. Motion made by Stan Shubart for acceptance of audit and approval. Seconded and carried. R. R. Williams of the Resolutions Committee presented the following resolutions to the, group for their approval: RESOLVED: That the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, in convention assembled, hereby ratify and confirm all official actions of the Officers, the Executive Committee and other committees of the Institute between and including July 3, 1963 and July 1, 1964.

Jan 1, 1964

The meeting was called to order with President George B. Pryde in the chair, and C. M. Schloss, acting Secrcetary. The meeting immediately pro¬ceeded to the reading of the papers. Mr. L. S. Ickis read a paper by A. L. Jones, entitled, "Underground Sub-Station Control," and elaborating on the general topic of automatic sub-stations. The discussion was led in part by Mr. E. H. Weitzel, acting as Chairman, in Mr. Pryde's temporary absence. Mr. S. R. DeBoer, who specializes on landscape architecture, gave an interesting talk on the subject of "City Planning and Landscape Architecture for Western Coal Camps." Notes were taken of this talk, which will be found in the proceedings. Mr. Pryde then resumed the Chair; There was no discussion of this paper. Mr. Thomas Foster, of Reliance, Wyoming, then read his paper on "Coal Dust in Mines." After the discussion of Mr. Foster's paper, the discussion of Mr. McKeehan's paper on track bonding, read at the Salt Lake meeting, was resumed, and this discussion will be found printed separately in the proceedings. Mr. Schloss then read an amusing and friendly telegram from C. H. Stevenson, of Price, Utah, which caused considerable merriment, and the Chairman asked Messrs. Weitzel, Littlejohn and Schloss to form an appro¬priate answer, and they answered it in the same spirit. The Chairman then announced the banquet for Wednesday evening and the Theatre Party for Thursday evening. The meeting then adjourned. The meeting resumed at 10:15 A. M., Thursday, February 14, 1924. The Chairman announced a photograph of the meeting to be taken at noon, on the Post Office steps, after which the Chairman appointed a nom¬inating committee, consisting of George A. Murphy, F. W. Whiteside and

Jan 1, 1924

(Referring to map) If there are any methods to improve on this I would like to have some suggestions on it. The maps there are on a scale of one inch to two hundred feet. At the time of each extension a letter is used and a line drawn across the entry and the room. The date of the extension is given up in the margin of the map. Here is an extension made April 6th. Extension L is shown in each one of the rooms, November 29th. N-you see the two rooms have been finished down into here. 0-the last extension, has just been stopped, and the three working rooms. Now, one of the features of this plan, when the rooms have been stopped, the line is drawn straight across. When the room or entry is still going, there is a small projection beyond the line, indicating that the next cut is changed. When the distance cannot be ascertained by the engineer, he gets the distance from the mine boss or some other source which is reliable, and that is put on in a dotted line. That gives you a complete story. Anyone looking over the map can see immediately every place that was working at the time of this extension, every place that is inaccessible, and get a complete picture. The extension of the coal is put on the extension at each extension. The survey stations are put in, showing each survey point. The pillars when they are pulled-only the pillars that are pulled are cross-hatched. The whole map is in cross-hatch without any regard as to what pillars are pulled. If a little stump is left in, that is shown on the map. The engineer only shows what pillars are pulled that he has actual knowledge of, or has been given to him in detail by the mine foreman. I believe that concludes the work on the mine map, and there is certainly room for a lot of improvement on most of the mine maps which we have been getting into the office. PRESIDENT PRYDE: Does anyone want to ask any questions? Any questions about the leasing regulations? I want to say there are several leases in the Rock Springs field, and when Mr. Smith comes on one of his visits the Rock Springs Institute have asked him to address them on the leasing proposition.

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: We have with us a gentleman from Utah, who is familiarly known -as the "Mudite King," Mr. Reid, of the Lion Coal Company. Here is a letter I would like to read, and probably Mr. Reid will give us an idea of his Mudite machine, or the results he is obtaining. This question was brought up in Rock Springs, Wyoming, but Mr. Reid was not there personally during the discussion, but Mr. Burnell, who is general superintendent of the Lion Coal Com¬pany, as much as he possibly could, described the system and its effects. I believe Mr. Reid will probably be able to give a somewhat clearer statement this afternoon. This letter is from the Coal Mining Inspector of the State of Utah, John Crawford. "February 10, 1925. "The Industrial Commission of Utah, Building. "Statement of John Crawford, Coal Mine Inspector, in regard to Muditing in Coal Mines: "That Muditing used in connection with our present sprinkling system in coal mines is the missing link to the system we have had heretofore, because the water applied by the former system began to dry out, in heavy air currents, the moment it was put on. Consequently the dust that had been humidified by sprinkling, came back to its natural condition, and if anything, the combustible parts of it, in my opinion, were more intensified than previous to being wetted down. "The advantages that Muditing has over the old system of sprinkling are: "1st. The dust that is on the roof, timbers and sides of the entry is washed completely off and rolled up in the Mudite solution which entirely destroys the wings, crudely speaking, of the fine coal dust. "2nd. Sprinkling with the Mudite system, the water and mud is of greater extent than could be applied with a hand hose by a sprinkler. This sprinkling can be done while the mine is in operation, just the same as if water alone was being used. "3rd. The Mudite solution, when dried out, leaves a coating which serves as an armour to the coal, so that in the event of a local explosion, the inflammable matter on the coal is non-combustible; whereas, if that same coal had been sprinkled with water only, and made free of dust, the heat would have the same effect on the coal as it has on a stove when coal is thrown into it-instantaneous combustion. "Therefore, it is my opinion that the Mudite system is the missing link to the perfecting of our sprinkling system here in Utah. "(Signed) JOHN CRAWFORD." Mr. Reid has with him a few sam¬ples of his Mudite, after it has become solidified, taken from the floor, as I understand it. It is interesting. We have a few minutes to spare to good advantage, were we to ask Mr. Reid to give us an idea of his machine, as briefly as he possibly can, and also what he thinks the effect of the Mudite is compared to dry rock dust. Mr. Reid. (Applause.) MR. W. J. REID (Lion Coal Company) : I came down here with no intention of making any talk on Mudite. However, there being so many people that have seen Mudite at Wattis

Jan 1, 1925

By Geo. 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 dis¬asters 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

By Jerry M. Eyster

The Bush Administration is committed to reducing emissions from existing power plants Candidate George W. Bush said: The key to reducing emissions from older power plants on the federal level is to cap emissions on a level that makes sense?. And harness the power of the market place and provide economic incentives to produce better environmental results. I would want to make sure that any program we pursue does not result in excessive and unnecessary increases in electric bills.

Jan 1, 2002

[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 Thomas Lien

Session 1 - 1 :45 p.m. June 27,1983 Session Chairman: Robert Diederich, RMCMl New Mexico Vice President MR. DIEDERICH: My name is Bob Diederich. I'm the Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Insitute from the state of New Mexico. I'm manager for the Navajo Mine down in Farmington, New Mexico and also project manager for a new mine that we're starling out called the LaPlata Mine in the same area. I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Tom Lien, who is the Director of Engineering, Western Division of AMAX Coal Company. He is responsible for mine engineering, environmental engineering, permitting, reclamation, planning, design and construction plant engineering, geology exploration, quality control and real estate for the western division. He joined AMAX Coal in 1980 as manager of preparation and quality control and was promoted to the present position in August of 1980. He has a BS in geological engineering from the University of Mines. He previously worked for Kennecott Copper Corporation in Hayden, Arizona from 1965 to 1970. He worked as a mine geologist, mill metallurgist, mine production and quality control engineer. Then he also worked for Kaiser Steel Corporation, Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine in California, 1970 to 1977. Worked as a process engineer and plant superintendent at that place. Then he was employed by Mountain States Research and Development, Tucson, Arizona, 1977 to 1980. Worked as a senior process engineer and operation superintendent. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Tom Lien who will talk to us about in-pit coal crushing. MR. LIEN: Thank you. The official title of my paper is actually: "The Potential for In-pit Crushing and Conveying in the Powder River Basin." The Powder River Basin is one of the world's greatest coal fields and will be an important source of energy for centuries to come. About one-eighth of the total coal producing in the United States comes from the Powder River Basin, and 80% of that production came out of Campbell County, Wyoming last year. The growth potential for this region is projected to be enormous. New technology as well as existing technology will make this region competitive in the decades ahead. Understanding the current status of the Powder River Basin, both the mines and the possible methods for changing the means of material movements within the mines is the subject of this paper. Each mine is unique and must be addressed specifically with respect to the application of new and innovative technology. There have been many articles written in the recent mining journals on in-pit crushing and conveying applications, including costs which are very interesting, enlightening and I recommend it to any company considering such installations. To give a general setting, coal production in the United States for 1982 was about 800,000.000 tons. This production came principally from six regions, the Applachian fields of the eastern states where bituminous and anthracite coals have been mined for almost three centuries, the Midwest located in the upper Mississippi Valley are often typified by huge dragline operations of which AMAX Coal has three right now, the Gulf Coast lignites. feeding mine-mouth power plants, the vast bituminous and sub-bituminous departments of the four-comer states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah and finally the Northern Great Plains lignite fields currently being developed and the sub-bituminous fields of Wyoming and Montana including the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. It is the darker brown right in the center of the photograph. It covers about 18,000 square miles. It's about 200 miles north to south and 90 miles east to west. The shallowest coal beds are on the east, north and northwest edges of the basin with deeper coal beds toward the center in the same kind of relationship. There are about one trillion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, that's the one with 12 zeros after it. A little bit there. It's distributed in many, many seams at varying depths to the current topography. In 1982 about 100,000,000 tons of coal were mined from this basin and 81,000,000 tons came out of Campbell County, Wyoming. The mines that are shown in this picture are basically the mines around the basin edge. The principal area that I'll be talking about is the eastern edge down where it shows Gillette and Campbell County. Geologically the Powder River Basin is the Fort Union formation. The most productive seam is called the Wyodak or Smith-Roland or the Anderson-Canyon, depending upon where you're located. There is about 75 billion tons of coal in the Wyodak of which about 23 billion are considered surface minable today. the coal is Paleocene in age, about 40,000,000 years old. It was once an old Delta region very much like the Mississippi River delta is today. During the 100,000 years that this deposit was formed peat accumulated to a thickness of about 365 feet. It was later buried and turned into sub-bituminous coal. All of the coal mined in the basin is for the electric utility industry. This coal has a typical BTU content of about 8,300 plus or minus about 4,500 BTUs. Sulfur coal is generally less than'/ %, thereby making this coal compliance coal in terms of sulfur dioxide emissions, 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

Jan 1, 1983

CLARK MOSELEY RMCMI PRESIDENT 1998-1999 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 95th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 27 thru June 29, 1999 Crested Butte, Colorado

Jan 1, 1998

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

Article I1 of the RMCMI Bylaws reads: Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classs, consisting of active members, life members and senior members, who shall have such rights, privileges and qualifications as these bylaws may provide. The names of all active, life and senior members, together with current mailing addresses, follow. [Lt. Jay Abbott M. L. FOSS Co. 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Lt. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Are Denver, CO 80207 ]

Jan 1, 1986

BHP-Utah International, Inc. Coal Magazine Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Southern Pacific Lines Tamarron Resort Utah Power & Light Company Utility Fuel

Jan 1, 1991

PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Emrick. Mr. Shubart would like to supplement your paper with another article. SECRETARY SHUBART: My paper really should not supplement Mr. Emrick's paper, because I secured some data from him, I knew Mr. Emrick had had a great deal of experience in shearing and I thought he could give you some useful data. (Here Mr. Shubart read the following:) "For the past two years, there has been considerable discussion among coal mining men concerning the advantages of a shearing cut in addition to the undercut, in mine work. We have had a number of requests for information on sheared coal. We were asked questions like these: What percentage increase in lump can be obtained from sheared coal? What has been the experience of mine men who have employed the shearing cut? Is the shearing cut a means of increasing the lump content? If so, is it increased to such an extent as to warrant the installation of shearing machines? Upon investigation it was found that no one could give us any definite information on the subject as no one had weighed separately the grades of coal produced from' the shearing cut. With a view of getting this information first-hand, the Goodman Manufacturing Company built up a shearing machine to be used in experimental work only. The officials of the Troy Coal Company were eager to share in the expense of obtaining this information, so that in May of this year we shipped to their mines our first type 319 shearing machine. The Troy Coal Company operates a mine at Troy, Illinois, in the No. 6 seam and produces about 275 tons daily. The coal seam averages five and one-half feet in thickness. Previous to the arrival of the shearing machine the coal was undercut six feet deep by a' Goodman Shortwall Machine. To break down the coal required two shots in the entries and three in the rooms. The percentage of lump measured over two-inch screens, averaged 58.2 per cent. The conditions of the mine were very favorable for obtaining accurate weights on the amount of lump and slack coal run over the shaker screens. The shearing machine easily cut the entire tonnage of the mine so that all coal dumped into the railroad cars had been produced from a shearing cut, in addition to an undercut. Accurate records were kept of the railroad weights and front this data the percentages of lump and slack were computed. During the month of June the percentage of lump produced over two-inch shaker screens was 69.9 per cent. This result demonstrated that the introduction of the shearing cut had increased the percentage of lump twenty per cent. The entries were driven ten feet wide and the rooms thirty feet wide The shearing cut was made near the center of the face in all places. A hole was drilled in each rib and the coal shot down with one-half the powder required when the places had been undercut only. The coal was broken down to the back of the cut so that very little pick work was necessary to load it out. The benefits derived from the shearing cut were as follows: 1. Increased percentage of lump, thus increasing the average price of coal per ton. 2. Preservation of a tender top due to the decreased amount of explosive used. 3. Facilitated handling of coal by the miner thus increasing the tonnage per man. 4. Eliminated coal yardage in entries and crosscuts of ten feet or less in width for the reason that the shearing cut provides a loose end from which to shoot the coal. This applies to the union fields only, as the non-union mines do not pay for coal yardage. Based on a price of $2.50 for lump coal and $1.25 for slack coal, the average price per ton was increased

Jan 1, 1926

By Jeff Mattern

Topics of Discussion ?Navajo Mine General Information ?Mapping, Photogrammetryand Image Fans ?Planning: Equipment, Control Points, Targets ?Digital Photography ?Software Manipulations: Image Matching, Creating a 3d Image and Triangulation, ?Mapping? Geologic Structure, Data Analysis ?Conclusions ?Other Applications

Jan 1, 2005

SECRETARY SHUBART: This letter will not surprise you. (Reads) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Mines Washington Sept. 4, 192G. Benedict Shubart, Secy, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. Denver, Colo. Dear Sir: "Sorry not to be able to be with you but since my function in the Institute has been largely along the line of `stirrer up of trouble' (of course always with the aid of Dalrymple), I do not wish to fall from grace now so am sending you a pamphlet on the last page of which is a' tabulation as to accident indices of various coal mining states and it seems to indicate that the states comprising the Rocky Mountain Institute have the poorest accident record of all the states producing coal. "It seems to me that even allowing for possible deficiencies in connection with placing accidents upon basis of hours of exposure, our western states need to `tighten up' as to safety practices, hence I hope that the Safety Committee report will be both drastic and progressive and that western coal mines apply the drastic proposals in addition to approving them as the policy of the Institute. Why wouldn't it be advisable to have a committee appointed to ascertain why the safety record of the states comprising the Institute is so bad as to coal mines? Wishing the Institute all kinds of success." (Signed) D. HARRINGTON. SECRETARY SHUBART: He encloses this pamphlet issued by the Bureau of Mines. On the back of it is this table; and it is a fact that the Rocky Mountain States are down at the lowest in almost every case, at the lowest point, with the highest accident rate in almost every kind of accident. Maybe he is wrong; maybe he states this for reasons. That is a rotten looking table for us.

Jan 1, 1926

By Bob Burnham

Agenda 1 Overview of forecasting process 2 Review of Pre and Post Recession Forecasts 3 US Demand/Supply Summary 4 Coal Demand by Region 5 Coal Distribution by Census Region 6 Coal Price Outlook 7 Carbon Cases 8 Takeaways

Jan 1, 2009

By Eugene McAuliffe

The subject of my few remarks addressed to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, "Guessing or Knowing! Which," may perhaps suggest but little to you here today. However, I am sure you will all agree with me when I say that in the conduct of a coal mining operation there should be no choice between guessing and knowing. The value of, and the results to be obtained from this Institute, its meetings and printed transactions, as well as those of other similar educational organizations, depend very largely on the mental attitude of those who constitute, through their pronouncements, the more active portion of the membership. Perhaps the most apt criticism that is now being made of the coal industry is that, to an extent possibly exceeding any other industry of similar magnitude and importance, it depends for its conduct altogether too much on "rule of thumb" and "tradition," rather than on proven practice and actual fact. The records of our coal mining association meetings bear expression of many conflicting opinions, the majority of which are sincerely put forth by those expressing same as representing the facts; the extremes expressed, however, frequently fix the question raised as one yet located in "no man's land." There are yet too many chances taken we are still "weighing pounds on railroad track scales" and measuring yards with the proverbial "bit of string." The actual expense of conducting any one of the several operations incident to the production of coal is rarely determined, and in many instances the general cost figures, prepared some weeks after the work is complete, are of that sweeping character that very little can be abstracted therefrom. Many coal companies are now making a daily cost sheet, showing the cost of labor and material in detail, as used in the several related operations,, and such is decidedly helpful, particularly to the mine superintendent and his foreman, who, without such, sail an uncharted sea; the auditor's belated monthly summary rarely ever seen by these men who are held responsible for the labor and material used. I have made reference to this situation as an accentuation of the fact that the coal industry contains more "serious minded, conscientious guessers" than does any other similar industry, although the annual cost of our product runs up well beyond the billion dollar mark, and what is more important, our industry is one that still continues to exact a heavy toll of human life. Now this brings me to the question of safety, the one question that should be, and which is, I know, uppermost in your minds. The coal mining world, engineering and operating, is now well sold on at least two things the theory of using permissible explosives and the elimination of the open light. Furthermore, the industry, particularly that portion which is located in Great Britain and the United States and Canada, are now planning vast extensions of the use of "rock" or "shale dust," both in the form of "dust barriers" and in "direct application" to entries and cross-cuts. This is well; however,, my study of past mine explosions has convinced me that the great majority of such had their very beginning in gas accumulations; frequently originating in restricted areas at the working face, in abandoned worked-out areas, or in some other certain place where ventilation is not, maintained as it should be; and that again leads me to the point where it can again be well said, that there is too much "rule of thumb," too much guessing now being done in regard to the volume of air required, and continuously furnished, in a given entry,, panel, room or area. Just to emphasize this situation, is it not a fact that the majority of mine inspectors express the ventilation conditions as measured by them, in terms of cubic feet per man employed, in each certain split, and does not the mining laws of many states yet demand a minimum of "100 or 150 cubic feet

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT WETZEL: Gentlemen, the fortieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute will now come to order. It is my pleasure to present Mr. William Fealey, who will introduce the first speaker. WILLIAM A. FEALEY (Bethlehem Steel Company, Salt Lake City, Utah): Mr. Wetzel and Gentlemen of-the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The Governor of the State of Utah was sup- posed to be here this morning, but he heard Bracken Lee was in town and he took a runout powder. So without any further ado, I am just going to present the Mayor of Price, Utah, who is perhaps better known to all of you than anybody else. Mayor Bracken Lee.

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1955

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