Search Documents

By Kirk Nobis

Develop a Risk Management Plan for Your Mine ? Why? ? Measuring ? Managing ? Conclusion

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1953

Jan 1, 1930

MR. STROUP: As soon as the mine workers realize that machine loading is going to be with us permanently, they will gradually accept the view that they, as well as the Mine Operators, will be in the end better off. Don't you find that to be true? MR. BUTLER: I do find that the antagonistic feeling that prevailed at the start is getting less and less and that the miners are co-operating with us. The machine is going to stay with us and I believe it is going to be better for them because instead of having the hard work of heaving coal, they will merely run the machinery that heaves the coal for them. I believe they all feel that way about the matter. MR. McAULIFFE: Mr. Farnham, out of his professional diplomacy, was very careful not to even mention his own machine by name. I would like to say a word about salesmen and about the men who develop the machines. They are perhaps doing more for the industry than we are doing ourselves. This applies also to the railroad business that I put a great part of my life in. If it were not for the energy, courage, and ingenuity of the men who manufacture machines, we would not occupy the advanced position we do today in the mining world.

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT WETZEL: The meeting will come to order. We are pleased to see a few of the more hardy survived last night's-ordeal and are present this morning. The Secretary has some correspondence which he will read. SECRETARY WHITESIDE: Gentlemen, I have a couple of telegrams and a letter which I would like to read to you at this time. First, a telegram addressed to Mr. Wetzel: "Regret greatly necessity canceling my plans to be present at meeting. Appreciate your conveying my best wishes to members for successful and profitable session.

Jan 1, 1942

By Grainne A. Matthews

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1961

By J. J. Forbes

Gentlemen : It is a pleasure to come to Glen- wood Springs to participate in this meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute an organization created to handle chiefly the economic questions dealing with the coal industry of the Rocky Mountain District. I am not unmindful of the many and varied problems confronting the mining industry of this country which is so general at the present time throughout the United States. By reason of the difficulties experienced in marketing the product of your mines, there is all the more reason for greater economy and efficiency in production. No industry can be efficiently operated without giving due consideration to the safety of the employees. Safety and efficiency are inseparable for the success of any industrial enterprise. While the Bituminous coal companies of the United States are doing splendid work in the promotion of safety, yet our fatality rate is exceedingly higher compared with that of foreign countries, and with greater cooperative organized effort on the part of mine owners, mine officials, mine workers, and state and federal governmental agencies having jurisdiction, much more substantial progress can be made in the future and a greater economic saving .to the industry effected, not taking into consideration the greatest and most important phase of safety, which is the conservation of life and health of all those who are engaged in the occupation of mining. You are concerned with freight rates, marketing of coal and similar operating problems. Yet have you earnestly considered the vital question that plays so important a part toward the success of any mill-

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1964

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 Paul A. Lang

Jan 1, 2007

By Kelly A. Cosgrove

Jan 1, 2003

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

[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

The ninth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation was held in conjunction with the RMCMI 2000 convention at the Sheraton Tamarron Resort, Durango, Colorado June 25 thru 27. The purpose of the mine rescue evaluation program is to provide an opportunity for mine rescue teams to learn new skills and improve their existing ones in a non-competitive environment. Several staged "disaster" scenarios were [ ] held where the teams are called upon to exhibit their life saving abilities. The evaluators meanwhile are offering suggestions, both verbal and written, to help the teams better understand the situations presented them. This non-competitive environment allows the teams to work together and share their knowledge with fellow mine rescue teams providing everyone with a positive learning experience. Mine Rescue Chairman Bill Balaz was in charge of coordinating the events. Seven teams consisting of seven to ten members each (totaling 63 members) participated in the two-day event. Each team was required to respond to three different real-life scenarios plus a written general knowledge test daily. This year's four professional evaluators included Art Saenz (Hazardous Materials) of Western Envi¬ronmental Associates; Guy Horton (Ropes), Guy Horton Rope Rescue; Mary Bailey (Medical), MBA Training and Ron Lauer (Confined Space) also lassos Western Environmental Associates. They cash prov- [ ] ided three different challenging mock situations per day per team. The teams had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios would be as details were provided only as they arrived. Ten volunteer victims added much drama and excitement to the event. Their realistic enactments, complete with false blood makeup and severed limbs, made for some very tense scenarios. The Mine Rescue Teams participating this year were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navajo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Longview, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River, Wyoming and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, Montana. Many new [ ] friendships were made and much knowledge shared. A swap meet was held Saturday afternoon for the teams to exchange miscellaneous equipment, hats, shirts, etc. The teams were asked to evaluate the program and the evaluators. Then responded with many positive suggestions that will help improve the upcoming events in the years to come. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning awards breakfast where the teams were presented with plaques. The participating victims and evaluators were also commended for their outstanding efforts. Sponsors for the Mine Rescue program were Big Sky Coal Company, CMC Rescue, Magnum Metals, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Electric. Many hours of volunteer time and effort from various family members of participants helped make the 2000 event a huge success.

Jan 1, 2000

By F. C. Miller

The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company has divided their coal mines into groups or divisions: Las Animas, Huerfano, Fremont and Gunnison counties. Each division is represented by a safety committee composed of three men appointed by the management and three men selected by the employes? representatives. The three men appointed by the management are usually from a group engaged in routine work that is primarily of a safety nature. Mr. Robert McAllister, chief mine inspector; Mr. George B. Parker, superintendent of first aid and mine rescue training; Mr. F. C. Miller, chief chemist, fuel department; and Mr. 0. C. Irwin, assistant chief electrician. The three men appointed by the management act in each of the four divisions. It is the duty of the safety commit- tee to visit each mine three times per year and make a thorough investigation of conditions underground and on top. Their report is in the form of recommendations to the management for their consideration. They are also called to investigate all fatal accidents and learn, if possible, the cause leading up to the accident and recommend precautionary measures that will prevent the recurrence. This committee inspects the haulage roads, air courses, manways, electrical equipment, ventilation, timbering, working places and humidity. In addition, each mine has a local safety committee with the superintendent acting as chairman. It is the duty of this committee to keep in daily touch with conditions underground and on top. They hold weekly meetings and discuss problems related to safety. These men work on local conditions that govern their affairs. As an example: One of the mines has a checking out board at the man-trip parting in addition to the regular checking in and out system as required by law, and this board is checked before the man-trip leaves for the outside, giving the officials a chance to take prompt action in looking up a man who may have become ill or injured. Should a man walk out and forget to check off, there is a penalty imposed. The ventilation of a coal mine is most important and the method of conducting the air to the working face is one of the greatest precautionary measures linked with safety. A quantity of air must be maintained at every working face to insure rapid diffusion of explosive or noxious gases and in a manner without interruption. With this intent in, view, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company is installing fan equipments with capacities of 200,000 cubic feet per minute with dual drives, twin fans in some instances, for insured circulation. Dual drives consist of a steam engine using exhaust

Jan 1, 1925

By S. W. Farnham

We have listened to many papers describing mechanical loaders, and systems of mining planned to increase their efficiency. We have become familiar with the various types and in a general way, their capacities and limitations. Messrs. F. E. Cash and E. H. Johnson in Bulletin 17 of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, subject Coal Mining Investigations, have a very complete review of the loading situation then. Mr. A. W. Dickinson, in a recent paper before this Institute, gave a later illustrated review of mechanical loaders. On page 28 of Cash & Johnson's paper is a list of loading machines to which might be added to bring the list down to date, the following: Under Digging and Loading Machines The Goodman Power Shovel Under Scraper Loaders The Goodman 436-G-3 125 H. P. three drum Scraper loader The Goodman 35 H. P. Entry loader and the Two Drum 125 H. P. Hoist built by Vulcan of Denver for scrapers Under Shaking Trough Conveyors The Eickhoff Conveyor The Link-Belt Conveyor The McCarty Duck-bill which is really a digging and loading element built to attach to the end of and operated by a reciprocating conveyor. The outstanding feature in this line of work in the past few years is the fact that a few very successful operations have been worked out on a large scale; the officers and staff in charge of this work have gone into details very thoroughly and altered and improved, in many cases, their mine equipment and mining methods, and by the exercise of persistent energy and intelligent effort, in the face of frequent difficulties and discouragements, they have attained results that are far ahead of the average loader operation. The coal mining industry owes much to these men for the pioneering and development of mechanical loading; their investigations in transport, shooting, shearing, snubbing, cleaning, and production costs, the results of which they have given freely and frequently to the public, are of great value. Foremost among the pioneers in this work are the Union Pacific Coal properties, the Quealy properties, the Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company and in the Central West, the Union Colliery Company of Illinois. On the other hand, in the great majority of installations, one loader, or possibly two or three loaders have been started in a given operation and through failure to make the proper effort to improve their transportation and work out the systems to utilize their loading machines, the loaders have not shown appreciable savings and in many cases, the installation has failed. It has been frequently stated in many meetings where loading has been discussed, that the idea of mechanical loading must first be sold not only to the operating staff but to the entire personnel of any company where installations are made. The problems involved in the successful application of this equipment are such that it requires enthusiastic and wholehearted teamwork on the part of everyone connected with the work and when difficulties arise, they must be ready to exercise initiative and try new ways oftentimes of overcoming impediments. The closest attention now is given to the question of economics how much will a loader reduce the cost of coal in any particular situation? Without fear of successful contradiction, I believe that experience up to date has unquestionably shown that where the shovel type of loader can be properly used, it produces in wide work, the cheapest coal of any loading device yet brought onto the market. Naturally there is a considerable difference between the results from different makes of shovels.

Jan 1, 1926

By W. R. Deeths

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

Jan 1, 1984

By Paul Schmechel

This time of year, our lawn is host to goodly numbers of birds - robins, English sparrows, finches of various flavors and some whose names I don't know. We lure them with a feeder in our backyard and I'm sure Patti and I spend several minutes a day watching them through a picture window that overlooks their coming and going. And, while the picture window supplies us with a constantly changing view, it does not treat our winged friends nearly so kindly. You see, at certain times of the day, reflections on our window feed back to our birds a mirror image of the backyard. Lifting off from the bird feeder, they see before them what is behind them. And, not infrequently they fly straight into the window. They stop abruptly, of course. It has to be quite a shock to discover that what is behind you is not the same as what is in front. At this point, I might be tempted to say something about bird brains - except for the fact that we humans also are prone to deceptive images thrown up by the past. Today, I think we hear a great many voices painting past images as they look to the future. We hear that the price of oil soon will rise to its former elevated position; the price of copper will bounce back; a hungry world soon will escalate the demand for food and our agricultural industry will be back in the black. In fact, we can hear hope from many voices telling us that our major resource-rich, basic industries are poised to fly up. I can hope that the voices are right, but I keep thinking that those expressions come from people seeing false images. Most certainly, it is more comfortable to see the past, rather than acknowledge that the world economy is being restructured and that the restructuring is affecting the Rocky Mountain states profoundly and negatively. The worst mistake we could make may be to place too much credence in the images from our past. We can be lulled into a dangerous complacency. What we need is a tighter belt and the will to do some serious bootstrapping. Before proceeding, I would make two points: First, it is not my intent to be a prophet of doom. But I do think we need some healthy doses of realism, if we are to avoid the shock of flying into a false future. Second, by now you have detected that I have choosen to diversify the assignment you handed me on utility diversification. As I proceed, you soon will see that the roots of diversification for many utilities lie in the subject that we ponder now. We could begin in many places, but let's start with energy. It is pervasive in our businesses and industries. We all use it. And, despite conventional economic wisdom, we are using less of it. The price is down, but we have not reverted to our profligate ways. That is true whether you look at the industrial customer or the residential consumer. As a nation and as a people, we have learned to do more work with less energy. A few statistics illustrated the point. If we use 1973 as the base year, energy use in the United States has declined almost I percent. If we examine the year of peak energy use, 1979, the decline approaches 7 percent. Let's look at it another way. In 1973, for every dollar of gross national product, the United States consumed 27,100 Btu of energy. Last year, 1985, the comparable figure was 20,700 Btu - a decline of 24 percent. So, not only are we using less energy, but we are using it more efficiently. Even though the price of energy has declined, we are unlikely to use substand with natural gas and petroleum consumption. Use of natural gas has dropped almost 21 percent since 1973. Petroleum consumption has declined 1 I percent since 1973 and almost 19 percent since 1978, when the U.S. used a record quantity of petroleum. We also know there's been no appreciable change in amounts of oil and gas used since 1981. We weathered both a sharp recession and a healthy recovery without altering the amount of those fuels used. That the use of oil and gas dropped sharply, while the total use of energy merely slumped a bit is easy to explain. The use of coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity from 1973 through 1985 increased almost 48 percent. Some people will tell you that the large decrease in the price of oil and gas will result in increased demand that will displace coal, nuclear and hydropower. In turn, demand will force the price of oil and gas upward. I doubt it. From the poking around I've done on the subject, I suspect there may be some short-term displacements, but they will be, for the most part, cancelled out by declining use among existing customers. For instance, we all know what has happened in the automotive sector. In 1973, the average U.S. automobile made 13.1 miles to the U.S. gallon of gasoline. In 1984, the most recent available statistic, the average auto made 16.94 miles to the gallon. That's a 19 percent improvement. Because annual miles driven per automobile are essentially unchanged over the period and the number of cars on the road is not increasing, we are witnessing a drop in this segment of the petroleum market. That trend will continue. Now, let's look at energy consumption patterns still another way. Between 1973 and 1985, consumption in the residential and commercial sectors of our economy increased total energy use by 11.2

Jan 1, 1986

By Wm. Monay

MR. MONAY (Vice President Kinney Coal Co., Scofield, Utah): The past year and a half has witnessed a series of coal mine disasters in Utah and Wyoming, concentrated into the short space of a few months, following a long period of years in which the industry was comparatively free from devastating calamities. The natural result has been a hysterical activity on the part of bureaus, commissions and professional reformers who know little about coal mining from a practical standpoint. This activity has been met by the industry in Utah with an attitude of submission, no doubt the result of the fear of being misunderstood by the public. But it is my firm conviction that the lives and property of the coal industry will find their surest guaranty of protection in the humanity, and in the self interest of those operating and working in the mines, rather than in governmental regulation. Inelastic, inflexible blanket statutes and rules will simply stifle and hamper the initiative and progress of our industry in working out its own salvation, under the varying and changing conditions of different localities, different conditions, and in different mines. We who have spent our lives in digging in the mines and operating them, know more about this business than anyone else and I believe it is time for us to speak up and no longer sit meekly by while inexperienced bureaus and unskilled commissions make up laws, rules and regulations for us which when made are on the books to stay, even though in a short time they may prove inapplicable, in whole or in part, or be superseded by something different, and which in some cases create new dangers or lull us into a false sense of security. Shortly after the Castle Gate explosion in March, 1924, a new set of safety rules was issued by the Indus- trial Commission of the State of Utah to become effective July 1st of the same year, the most important of which prohibits the use of black powder in any mine--gaseous or non-gaseous; prohibits the use of open flame lamps in any mine-gaseous or non-gaseous; and requires that rock dusting in all main haulage ways as far as the freezing point and required that all mining machines be equipped with water to be applied while cutting. These rules have been characterized as "Utah's Monument to her Dead Miners" in a large poster spread broadcast over the country from an office in New York that styles itself the Association for Labor Legislation. In reviewing the coal mining history of the State of Utah, in the year 1900, a serious disaster occurred at Winter Quarters. The cause of the same is believed to be an explosion of powder that was stored in the mine, which was a common practice in the early days, and from that time until the Castle Gate disaster, March 8, 1924, a period of some twenty-four years, no explosion of any kind occurred in this district. During all this period open lamps were used, considerable black powder was used, rock dusting was unheard of, sprinkling with water was very generally done-all without any catastrophe. Since the adoption of the new rules, we have 'had a very violent explosion at the Carbon Fuel mine in Spring Canyon. At the time of this explosion, 3,000 feet of the main slope had been rock dusted several times between July 1st and September 21st. The second left entry, which is a main haulage way, a distance of 3,000 feet was completely rock dusted on the date of the explosion. This mine is not considered extremely gaseous, yet an explosion as violent as that of the Castle Gate mine occurred. Some thirty men who had been loading coal in various parts of the mine on this Sun- day, the day of the explosion, and other men employed in rock dusting the second left entry, had just left the mine a little while before it occurred, and no abnormal condition in the mine was noted. At the time of the explosion five machine men were in the mine.

Jan 1, 1925