Search Documents

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you any maximum length that you make your dust barriers? What I mean by that is, your entries are 10 feet wide, and I believe if I remember right, in your single track entries you had only one dust barrier to cover the full width of the. entry in your double track entries, I believe you had two-I would like to know, have you any maximum length you make these barriers? MR. CHAS. LEGER, ROYAL FUEL CO., UTAH: It is stated that they shouldn't be over 8 feet long to obtain sensitiveness. If they make them over 8 feet they are not as sensitive as they should be. They should be made short for two reasons in order to keep the sagging out and to make them as sensitive as possible. MR. DAN HARRINGTON, U. S. BUREAU OF MINES: I didn't come here to enter into any extended discussion on rock dusting or to discuss in particular the situation at Dawson. At the February meeting at Denver, we made a complete study of this matter. Since that time a report was completed and reported to the Phelps-Dodge Corporation and Mr. Moorhead probably has a copy of it, which can give you more complete information as to what we found. We found that with the adobe dusting that they have done, they had six miles of entry pretty thoroughly dusted and of all the samples we took, at least 95 percent of them showed that not only the floor but the ribs and roof were in such a condition that an explosion could not originate in any part of this entry. In other words, this entry as it was dusted was absolutely protected from ignition and propagation. The adobe they used was of material that was non-combustible. In most instances there was not more than 3 per cent of moisture in it.

Jan 1, 1924

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

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

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

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925

On Monday, June 27, 1921, at 6 p. m., twenty-four members of the Institute from. Colorado and New Mexico, left Denver on the Union Pacific for Rock Springs, Wyoming, arriving there at 9:42 a. m., June 28th. The party was met at the depot by the Rock Springs committee and a large number of the local Institute members. The day was spent in visiting the Central Power Plant of, the Union Pacific Coal Company and adjacent mine, the new 'E Plane, the Reliance, Dines, Winton and Sweetwater coal properties in the district. At noon a very elaborate lunch was served in the First Aid Building at the Reliance mine, which was most heartily enjoyed by all. In the evening the members and friends visited the new Rialto theater and saw the pictorial exposition of the' "Sky Pilot". The evening terminated with a dance in the ballroom of the Masonic Temple from 9:30 until midnight, concluding one of the most enjoyable days which the Institute has ever spent in Rock Springs. At 12:3o a. m. the original party, augmented by six members from Rock Springs, were again enroute to Salt Lake City, arriving there at 8:30 in the morning of Wednesday, June 29th. The Hotel Utah had been selected by the local, committee as the headquarters for the convention, and the majority of the -members at once proceeded to that place where the books were opened and the paying of dues and registration of the members were carried on until 11:45 a.m. At noon a majority of the members were entertained at the L. D. S. Tabernacle with an organ recital, which was up to its usual standard of excellence.

Jan 1, 1921

Please note all Proceedings of the Institute were taken verbatim by stenotypists from Hyatt & Associates of Denver and editing has been minimal. MR. MORTENSEN: On behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I take great plea¬sure in saying good morning to you at Vail. With a few clouds in the sky, at least we won't get sunburned. We won't have to worry about our kids in the swimming pool, perhaps. It is delightful for me to have been able to have represented the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute for the year 1982-1983. This has been our 71st year and this is our 79th meeting. In recognizing the attendance here, that dinner we had last night, and some of our entertainment must have gotten to some of us, or it is a little early. But I'm sure as the day goes on, and with the speakers outlined, it will be very beneficial for those who do attend. We do appreciate your attendance. I'd first like to make an introduction of our head table. Doris Finnie, she is our executive secretary. As most of you are aware, Gussie Whiteside retired as secretary. This will be the first time since the Institute started that there has not been a Whiteside present at one of our conventions. I'm sure Gussie would appreciate any calls or letters that any of you would care to make to her. Doris, I might add, has been a great help to me and all of the people who have been working on the program for the Institute this past year. There's been lots of reorganization and we are very pleased with Doris's ability to take hold from Gussie without any waves. Much credit must be given to you Doris for this and we do appreciate the help you have given us and believe me she has kept us out of trouble. Next, we have Art Neill. He is our vice president of the Institute from Montana and he also works with Western Energy Company. We appreciate the help that all of these session leaders and chairmen give to us. We have other names on the head table, but they will fill in as the morning goes on, so we won't bother you with any of those at this time. To set the stage for business, first I would like to call on Doris for a motion to approve the minutes of last year. MS. FINNIE: Thank you, Vernal. Mr. President, I suggest that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the members refer to pages 9 through 80 of the Proceedings for the 78th regular meeting of RMCMI, as published MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Doris. Do we have a motion to so approve? MR. LINVILLE: I so move. MR. MORTENSEN: Loren Linville so approved. Do we have a second? MR. GARR: Second. MR. MORTENSEN: All in favor say aye. (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Those opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. I'm sure glad we didn't have to read those 80 pages. Is Doug Hammer in the audience? He was going to give us a list of new members of the Coal Institute and ask for your approval. But because of his absence, the names will be listed so that you can read them at a later date, I will entertain a motion that we approve the new members who have joined the Institute. Do I so have a motion? MR. BERNSTROM: I would make that motion. MR. GARR: I second. MR. MORTENSEN: Do we have any questions? All in favor¬ (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. Next, we'd like to proceeed with our Nominating committee report from the chairman, George Nugent, and the election of next year's officers. George, would you please take the stand? MR. NUGENT: Mr. President, and members of the Institute, your Nominating committee consists of five past presidents of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From Colorado Roy Coulson; from New Mexico, Bob Wilson; from Utah, Bob

Jan 1, 1983

By James J. Bryja

The production capabilities of today?s longwall systems have resulted in significant increases in retreat rates. This has in turn resulted in a heightened demand on panel development rates to assure that subsequent panels are completed in time to avoid a longwall production outage. As a means of reducing the pressure on the panel development activity a trend has developed towards the use of wider face lengths. The aim of using a wider face is to reduce the longwall retreat rate without sacrificing productivity and thereby reduce the pressure on increasing panel development rates. However, as the face width increases so too does the number of hydraulically powered roof supports that are required to control the longwall face roof. This increase in the number of units inherently translates into increases in the level of required maintenance relative to the multitude of mechanical and hydraulic components, and an increase in the time required for tear-down and installation time during the moves between panels. An obvious method of mitigating the maintenance and move-time impacts of wider faces is to employ the use of individual roof supports having a wider center-to-center spacing. This practice would serve to minimize the number of roof supports and maximize the time availability for longwall face production. With this target in mind a joint research project with DBT was initiated in 1998 to study the feasibility of using 2 m wide shields to replace the then standard 1.75 m wide shields. After four years of comprehensive work, the technical team from DBT and RAG American Coal completed the design and development of a prototype shield that would later become part of the world?s widest longwall face employing the use of shields having a spacing of +2 meters. The final spacing of the shields actually became 2.058m in order to match the standard pitch of the rack bar shearer haulage elements on the conveyor. In July 2002, the 2 m wide shields were successfully installed in LW-46 panel at RAG Cumberland mine in the U. S. The authors in this paper summarize the design considerations of and operational experiences with the world?s widest longwall face using +2 meter wide roof supports.

Jan 1, 2008

Pictured on these pages are the six RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1985-86 year followed by a brief profile. Five of the winners were present as RMCMI guests at the June convention at Tamarron to receive their recognition plaques at the welcoming session held Monday, July I, 1985. In addition to the plaques, each winner will receive $500.00 to be used toward tuition in the coming academic year. Also, as this is a continuing award, the winners from the 1984-85 season, will also receive an additional $500.00 for tuition use in their senior years provided they have maintained a good academic standing. Criteria for these awards is (1) 'That the award be made in the spring to a sophomore student to be used toward tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U. S. citizen and a resident of the state involved. (3) That the recipient have good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in Western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member as well as firms, businesses and corporations. Checks payable to RMCMI Scholarship may be mailed to the RMCMI Office at 777 Nile Street in Golden, CO 80401. Profiles of the 1985 winners follow: [ ]BEVERLY MOON Colorado School of Mines Beverly is a resident of Greeley, Colorado. She maintains a 3.1 grade average at the Colorado School of Mines and was on the Dean's List in 1983. In addition she also appeared on the Academic Roll in 198 1 and 1984. She participates in the Society of Women Engineers, and this summer Beverly is working for North American Coal Corporation's Coteau Properties, outside of Beulah, North Dakota, as an Engineer's Assistant. [ ]DEE BRAY Montana College of Science and Technology Dee comes from a small ranch outside of Hall, Montana and is currently pursuing a degree in Mining Engineering at Montana Tech. This summer he is working for North American Coal where he was selected out of more than a dozen applicants for his position. As a side note, Dee's brother, Dean Bray, is also a Mining Engineer, a Montana Tech Grad, and works for Consol at the Glen Harold Mine in North Dakota.

Jan 1, 1985

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

At 10 a. m. registration was commenced and completed. At 11:30 a. m. the meeting was called to order by the President, William Littlejohn. There was no unfinished business, new business nor reports of committees. The minutes of the previous meeting, as published in the proceedings, were approved. The report of the Treasurer was referred to the Auditing Committee who were auditing the report of the previous year. At 2 p. m., President William Little- john called the meeting to order for study session. Mr. J. Samuel Pyeatt, the new president of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, ad- dressed the Institute at length, expressing his pleasure at the opportunity of meeting the coal operators, pledging his cooperation toward the solution of the mutual problems that are arising. He reviewed the change in the Western Industrial situation; explained how the revenue of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Rail- road was being received from freight rates, only twenty-four per cent above the rates of 1914, yet laborers receive 97 per cent more, supplies cost 58 per cent more, showing that no reduction in rates can be expected unless other conditions are adjusted. He gave figures to show the immense sums, aggregating ten million dollars, that have been spent on improvements in the last ten years. The railroad is improving and will continue to improve. Mr. Pyeatt feels that the serious troubles of the railroad are over and that with the cooperation of the shippers, better service and more profits are ahead. He showed the increase in rates on farm products to be only 48 per cent, as against an average in- crease in price of farm products, them- selves, of DG per cent. The position of the farmer is not as serious, nor un- fair, as has been claimed. More equitable legislation is promised, and this is needed to offset the efforts of demagogues to deceive the people as to the actual facts. Much equipment has been put into the railroad, much new and powerful equipment, and ten of the largest narrow gauge locomotives ever built have just been ordered, engines that will do the work of three of the present locomotives. This ratio of improvement will be maintained throughout the narrow guage system, and the Rio Grande will not lag behind the shippers and the operators in co- operation. The President answered Mr. Pyeatt's remarks, and then called the meeting to order for discussion. The study sessions were held; papers were read by .J. H. Emrick, "Cutter Bits"; D. A. Stout, "Experiments in Mining Methods," and Harry Petersen, "Permissible Powder and Cushion Shooting." Tuesday, February 17, 1925 The meeting was called to order Tuesday morning at 10 a.m., and papers read by: F. C. Miller, "Safety Methods With The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company"; this was supplemented by a talk by 0. C. Irwin on "Automatic Mine Fan Control," illustrated by models of the apparatus used; Samuel Tescher, "The Operation of a Gaseous Mine."

Jan 1, 1925

By J. C. Rae

A Japanese mining engineer was given a year's leave of absence by his company and dispatched on a tour of inspection of all the principal coal mining regions of the world. He visited the New Castle region of England, Wales, Scotland, France, Germany and Alsatian mines, the underseas col¬lieries at Nova Scotia and Vancouver, and our own important fields of Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. You are probably surprised to know that after seeing all these, he pronounced the Gebo mine of the Owl Creek Coal Company as the most interesting operation he had seen. The Gebo Mine is located about three miles west of Kirby on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad in the Big Horn Basin region of Wyoming, 500 miles north of Denver and 200 miles south of Billings, Montana. The mine is working on a coal bed five or six to eleven or twelve feet' thick, dipping 22 to 23 degrees toward the northeast. The coal occurs in what is called the Eagle formation; and is found between two massive sandstones from 25 to 65 feet thick, which, weathering into bold', gray-colored cliffs, serves as a guide to the location of the coal bed. The deepest workings have an overburden of 800 feet. Cleavage planes of the coal extend at an angle of 45 degres to the pitch, and perpendicular to roof and floor. The coal itself is generally clean and not difficult to cut. It ignites readily from spontaneous combustion, however, which circumstance makes an ever-present fire hazard which must be carefully watched and guarded against. The coal is classed as sub-bituminous with analysis about as follows: Moisture 17% Volatile Matter 33% Fixed Carbon 46% Ash 4% Sulphur, about ½ % B. t. u. value a trifle under 11,000. It is known as Owl Creek coal, is one of the best domestic and steam fuels in the West, and is very popular in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, South Dakota and Nebraska. While the coal slacks somewhat rapidly when exposed to the weather, it stores readily for months if placed under cover. On account of the somewhat isolated position of the mine as regards manufacturing establishments, there was a decided difficulty in disposing of slack, especially during the early years of the mine (1907 to 1914), and approximately 10 per cent of the entire product had to be wasted as slack during those years. This difficulty has been largely overcome since 1914, due partly to growth of manufacturing establishments in tributary territory, and also to enlarged transportation facilities. Also largely due to its isolated position, the mine has been compelled to use an extremely large proportion of box cars, much over 50 per cent of the product (in some years 75 per cent) being shipped in box cars, which, of course, entails extensive loading equipment and increases cost of loading. The output of the Gebo Mine for 1920 was 348,000 tons, for 1921, 273,000 tons; the rate of production during the year 1922 was over 1,700 tons daily, and 2,000 tons daily in January, 1923. The mine was developed by driving three openings straight down the pitch, the main slope being 12 to 14 feet wide and 3,000 feet long. A little distance from the surface a pair of level entries were turned right and left, known as the first East and first West. From these, rooms were driven up the pitch and chute mining attempted with only indifferent success: The failure of this rise-room method of mining was attributable to several

Jan 1, 1923

The meeting was called to order in the Albany hotel, with the President, John B. Marks, in the chair. At the request of the Secretary, the chairman brought before the Institute the question of a reorganization of the finances and system of conducting the Institute, explaining that, although the Institute is in good financial shape and the meetings are of great interest and are attended by a large and serious minded membership, the Institute is getting so large and of such value to the operators that it should be taken over by the operators, conducted by some man elected by and from the operators, and its financing put on a definite basis. At present, it was explained, the Secretary, not a coal operator nor interested in operating, arranges and conducts all meetings and finances the Institute from three sources: the very low dues, the advertisements published in the Proceedings, and by direct solicitation of contributions among the supply and machinery houses. Mr. James Dalrymple spoke vigorously on the need of having the Institute entirely free from any taint of commercialism. Upon motion by W. D. Brennan, seconded, a committee of four, one to represent each State, was voted. Appointment of this Committee was deferred temporarily. The reading of the minutes of the previous meeting was then called for, but upon statement of the Secretary, that the minutes were published in Volume 2 of the 1925 Proceedings, they were dispensed with. The Secretary-Treasurer's report was made informally inasmuch as the last report had not yet been audited. In brief, the Secretary reported on a cost of approximately $1,600.00 a year to publish and send out the Proceedings, an expense of approximately $1,800.00 to care for the Denver meeting, and an expense of approximately $1,200.00 to care for the summer meeting. The Secretary's salary of $25.00 a month has not been collected, but a certain portion of this has been used for stenographic expense. The Secretary asked for expression from the floor regarding the advisability of continuing the publication on the present elaborate plan. Mr. Gibson, Mr. Marks, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Dick and others spoke positively on the value of the present form of the Proceedings, and urged that no changes be attempted in this. Upon motion of Holbrook Mahn, it was moved, seconded and carried that E. H. Weitzel and W. F. Murray be made life members of the Institute in recognition of their services in the organization of the Institute, placing them with Floyd W. Parsons as the original organizers of the Institute. Mr. Murray spoke briefly in acknowledgment of the courtesy. Mr. Weitzel's words are included in the discussion A letter was read from George B. Pryde relative to the present emblem of the Institute. Upon motion by Mr. C. W. Sinclair, seconded by Mr. Dalrymple, it was moved that the consideration of a new emblem be

Jan 1, 1926

By Graham Bright

Up until a few years ago most of the electrical equipment used in the mines of this country was developed for industrial purposes and was adapted for use in mines by slight modifications. It became apparent, however, that mining conditions differed widely from most industrial applications and it became necessary to design and develop apparatus, particularly suited for use under mining conditions. Most of the electrical apparatus used in mines today, however, does not owe its success entirely to mining development, but in many cases developments in other branches have been taken and improved upon and modified to meet mining conditions. Power Plant: In the earlier days the power plant for the production of electric power usually consisted of fairly small belt driven direct current generators operated from reciprocating non-condensing steam engines. Today where possible the mines purchase power from central stations and where not possible it is ususally produced from turbine driven plants using non-condensing turbines for the smaller plants and condensing turbines for the larger plants. The bad water conditions at many of the coal mines in this country is, responsible in a large measure for the high cost of upkeep and repairs in isolated power plants. This feature with the type of labor available makes it difficult to operate an isolated plant condensing except in the larger mines where water conditions are good and the apparatus can be taken care of. The geared turbine is a particularly simple and rugged piece of apparatus and requires very little attention over long periods of time. Hoists: The first electric hoists to be installed used various types of motors designed for railway or industrial purposes, and the control furnished was far from satisfactory. Today most of the mine hoist motors are of the alternating current type, especially designed for hoisting service. The control for motors of 200 H. P. or over is usually of the magnetic of liquid rheostat type, and as built today will operate over fairly long periods with a very moderate cost of up-keep. Hoists of 1000 H. P. or larger are usually of the direct current type using field control and receiving power from a flywheel or synchronous M. G. set. Hoists of this type have made remarkable records in regard to continuity of operation and low cost of up-keep. Where high speed operation is desired in either coal or metal mines, the D. C. equipment using field control and a separate M. G. set to supply power to the hoist motor is not only the safest and most economical but in many cases is the only type of equipment capable of satisfactorily obtaining the output required. A number of improvements have been brought out with the field control scheme in connection with the acceleration, retardation, overfeed and overwind of the hoist. With these new developments the hoist operator can no longer abuse the hoist by improper manipulation of the control handle. Until a few years ago the matter of safety devices was not given much consideration when installing hoisting equipment. At the present time the safety devices are considered one of the most important items in connection

Jan 1, 1922

By R. A. McAllister

The haulage system employed to convey coal from the face to the outside, dates back to 300 B. C., when slaves carried the mineral from the face to the consumer. The British discovered coal on their island about 800 A. D. and they were the first people to make practical use of coal and make coal mining a successful operation. The Britons carried cargoes of coal in their trading expeditions long before Columbus discovered America. The early history of mine haulage in the British mines relates to women with baskets, a practice still in use in Korean mines. Coal was discovered in America in 1679. The first mine worked in the United States was opened at Richmond, Va., in 1770. The haulage inside consisted of a crude sled loaded with, sacked coal ready for the market and drawn by a mule. The tipple consisted of the very simple operation of loading the sacked coal to the back of a lame mule, which represented the transportation system between mine and boat. The capacity of the boat was one ton and this large production of coal was intrusted to a small boy, who delivered to any place in town his bushel basket filled' with winter fuel. One daring coal operator shipped fifteen tons of coal by boat to Philadelphia and the man in charge had to seek employment to pay his board while finding customers for his fuel. A production of five tons per day would hardly attract attention to any system of haulage, add three ciphers and the importance of mine haulage is made very plain to the management. I will consider a production between 3000 and 5000 tons in eight hours and endeavor to bring out the essential features necessary to make the haulage system a regulated precise factor. There are two phases to mine haulage, the mule trip from the room to the motor or gathering party and the main haul to the outside. The motive power, whether done by mule, wire-rope or electric motor cannot be effective if left to the power alone. Conditions must offer no obstacle and it is the removal of obstacles that make the haulage system. This paper will consider a flat seam with the usual jump ups and downs or natural obstacles to be met and mastered by the successful tail-rope or electric system. The pit car is no longer a screening system scattering the fine coal from the room to the outside, adding to the costs by giving employment to road cleaners and polluting the ventilating system with a fog of coal dust. It is not a contrivance with four flat wheels and a labor killer in the room or on the tipple The large producing mine has a pit car with a tight body, roller-bearing wheels, with a self-oiling system that offers the least possible draw-bar pull to overcome the friction resistance, a hand brake conveniently placed and positive in action, a wheel base short enough to make room necks and long enough to

Jan 1, 1921

By B. W. Dyer

At about 8:30 o'clock on the morning of March 8, 1924, an explosion occurred in the Castle Gate No. 2 Mine of the Utah Fuel Company, Castle Gate, Utah, and 171 men lost their lives. The explosion was caused by the ignition of a comparatively small body of gas and was propagated throughout the mine by fine coal dust which had accumulated on the roof and ribs of the mine and by coal dust made by the explosion itself. Castle Gate No. 2 Mine was one of the best kept mines in the state and it was believed not only by the officials of the Utah Fuel Company, but by all others connected with the coal industry of the state that this was one of the safest mines in the entire state. The state had not been visited by a catastrophe for over twenty years and it was a general belief that the mines were kept in such condition that a catastrophe was almost impossible. During the preceding twenty years new mining officials from other fields had entered the state and seeing that sprinkling as done in Utah was far more elaborate than in most other coal mining sections of the country, caused them to believe that they were keeping their mines in an absolutely safe condition. When coal -mines suffer no mishap during a period of twenty years the general attitude relative to safety may become somewhat lax, not only with the operating officials, but also with the State Inspection Department. However, there were some who were more keen to appreciate the hazards of Utah coal dust and who predicted that if Utah mines were kept only damp but not wet, some day the state would be shocked by the news of a dreadful disaster. In a paper prepared and read before the Salt Lake City Chapter of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers in 1924, Mr. D. Harrington stated: "The writer had his first mining work in Utah mines spending nearly ten years in Utah, starting just after the Scofield explosion in 1900. After having been absent from the state for about eight years upon returning and spending a few days in a few properties, there appeared then to be a definite relaxation as to precautionary methods especially against dust; some of the properties which in 1900 to 1910 would have stopped work if for any reason water was not available for sprinkling purposes, were in 1918 definitely dry in many places, and in some instances there was also definite relaxation as to shooting regulations, some properties with electric shooting systems were allowing firing of certain shots while the men were in the mine. The Utah coal. dusts are too inflammable and explosive to allow of taking any chances and unless up-to-date and carefully maintained, the Utah coal mining world will hear to its dismay, that the very excellent record of the past twenty-three years as to explosions has been shattered. Hence, possibly it was not altogether a complete surprise that such a disaster occurred in Utah, but it was a surprise to many that it occurred in one of the best kept mines in the state and it was that fact that led the coal mining men of Utah to believe that the state coal mining laws should be modified.

Jan 1, 1925

By T. H. Butler

The two most talked of questions in the mining industry today are rock dusting and mechanical loading. The one as a matter of safety, and the other as a matter of economy, and both are of vital interest to the mining fraternity. Rock dusting and other safety methods will be dealt with by others at this meeting, so I will confine my few remarks to the matter of mechanical loading. I will not attempt to tell you what mechanical loaders are doing in the different mining fields throughout the country, or what they should do, but will endeavor to give you an outline of the work being done with mechanical loaders in No. 4 Mine of the Union Pacific Coal Company, at Hanna, Wye. In order that you may better understand and be in a position to follow me it will be necessary to cite the conditions under which we are working. and the type of loaders in use. The seam pitches from 14 to 17 degrees, and is normally 32 feet in thickness, and is overlaid with a soft sandstone roof. The panel system of working is used, planes being driven on the pitch, and rooms driven on the strike. Owing to faults being encountered planes are driven between the faults, and the. rooms on either side are in some instances 800 to 1,000 feet in depth. Rooms are advanced eight feet in height, and 32 feet in width, by hand loaders and .Toy mechanical loaders, and when driven to the boundary,, 18 feet of the remaining 24 is loaded out with Thew electric shovels, and six feet left to protect the roof. In January, 1916 the company installed a Type 1 Thew shovel, equipped with a 1 1/4-yard dipper, and in July, 1917, they installed a Type 0 Thew electric shovel, equipped with a 1-yard dipper, and in the year 1918 two additional Type 0 Thew shovels, equipped with a 1-yard dipper, were installed, making a total of four Thew shovels for this mine. The introduction of these shovels caused the employees much concern, and like all departures from the old methods of mining, met with indifference by some and open antagonism by others, so that for some time they results obtained were not satisfactory. However, by constant supervision and changes in the method of haulage the results obtained at present, while not entirely satisfactory, are much better and the production and costs are reasonably good. The Thew shovels in use are mounted on traction wheels with swivel axle and move. in all directions by their own power, and while the weight of each is approxi¬mately 20 tons, they are not as cumbersome as. one would think and are easily operated. The system used in working these shovels is to shoot the coal clown ahead of the shovels and maintain two tracks, two cars being used on each track so that shovel is loading on one track while driver is, changing cars on the other. When place is finished the shovel is run back to the first cross-cut by its own power and lowered to the next room with block and tackle, the roof coal in cross-cut being shot down to a height of 16 feet to allow passage of the boom. With better results from the Thew shovels we soon realized that it was necessary to find some method of developing rooms faster than was being done with hand loaders in order to keep the Thew shovels in working places, and in November, 1923, the company purchased from the Joy Machine Company two Type 4 B U Joy loaders, and the installation of same met with the same indifference and antagonism from the employees as did the Thew

Jan 1, 1924

[ATZ, Inc. American Mining Congress Anaconda Minerals Company Andalex Resources, Inc Arapahoe Energy Consultants Atlas Powder Co Becor Western Inc. Mr & Mrs. Bernard Bernstrom Black Beauty Resouces British Mining Consultants (USA) Limited]

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1979

Past President Shirl McArthur opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. He called on the Auditing Committee to give its report. Stan Shubart, who checked the financia1 report of the treasurer, read the report. He asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. Shirl thanked all the committees for an excellent job in making this meeting a most successful one. Special thanks to Park Lamborn for a fine program and to Gussie Whiteside for all her efforts in behalf of the Institute. An increase in salary was voted for the secretary-treasurer. It was decided to return to Vail for the 1979 convention. The Resolutions Committee was called upon to give its report. Roy Coulson, Chairman, submitted the following: (I) RESOLVED, Whereas, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: O. F. Bridwell C. L. Book O. F. Lewis Frank Kolar O. H. Littrell L. B. Phillippi Weston L. Potter George C. Trevorrow

Jan 1, 1978