Search Documents

MR. SHUBART: Mr. Miller's paper mentioned the two processes that seemed to be a success, the Smith process and the Piron process. I suppose the main difference is this, that Smith's process is to furnish domestic fuel and the by-products while the Piron process that Ford is installing is for fuel for power plants. I would like to ask Mr. Miller something about the commercial cost of the process. With the briquette you must make it cheap enough to sell. What are the commercial possibilities of Smith's briquette? MR. MILLER: It is pretty hard to say what the cost would be at this time, owing to the fact that slack has advanced double, or even more at the time I was in New York with the plant, but at that time it was costing $1.10 for the operation. You can add to that, of course, the cost of the coke. One dollar and ten cents was the entire cost of plant operation. It takes about one and one-half tons of coal to make a ton of briquettes. One dollar and ten cents takes care of all the material, cost, labor, handling, etc. Labor was much cheaper then. I would say it would cost about $2.20 now. The cost of coal is what you can buy it for on the market. I don't think, however, that the carbocoal process will ever meet with any great favor for the simple reason that it is really a prepared fancy fuel. It is going to be nice for people in offices where they want a grate or for families where they want a nice clean fuel. It leaves no stain on the fingers, no odor to it. It seems in carbonizing coal we change the carbon molecule. For instance, we are all familiar with the diamond. It is carbon, yet it requires a tremendous heat to burn a common little diamond. But you can set a piece of charcoal afire, which is also carbon, with a match. The molecular form has been changed in carbonizing coal, i. e., it is larger. Carbocoal will fire very readily, it can be started with a piece' of paper. I think the Piron process will be the process, i. e., to simply take out the tars and light oils, then fire direct-have the distillate plants right on the job. CHAIR: Can Mr. Shubart tell us something of the mechanical part of the Piron process? MR. SHUBART: The Piron process is of interest because Mr. Ford is taking it up. He has made so few mechanical mistakes it makes us feel that it is a success. Piron is a chemist of high accomplishment and reputation. The thing about the proces is its simplicity. Mr. Smith's is a very elaborate process, but Piron has gotten around all that. Piron feeds the raw coal in at about one-half inch mesh or smaller. He feeds it into a retort about 55 feet long, 16 feet wide over all. He has a hearth about 6 feet wide and the length of the retort. The base of the hearth that carries the coal is a conveyor, a flat cast iron conveyor, a very massive affair, very accurately made, so that there is no loss of coal. Between the upper and lower strands of the ' conveyor is a bath of molten lead which gives an accurate control of temperature. For best results he must have temperature of not under 800 F., not over 1,300 degrees F., about 1,100 or 1,200 F. seems to be ideal for getting greatest yield of oils and the best tars and other by-products. This lead bath has a system of flues running through it that

Jan 1, 1923

Mr. Shepard's paper was unfortunately delivered extemperaneously so no record is at hand. He spoke most interestingly and at length on the oil shales of Colorado, giving his opinion as to the ultimate outcome of the oil shale industry. He explained his idea that it would be built up of comparatively small plants, each of which would make the crudes, or more exactly would roughly divide the crude into its fractions, piping or shipping the fractions to a Central Refinery, using the residue for fertilizer, as it runs very high in fertilizer salts. He recommended that this plan be taken up by Coal Producers, that they consider the possibility of breaking up coal and selling its more refined products in place of selling raw coal. He spoke at length of the various outlets for products of distillation. Mr. McDermott gave a very interesting talk later on work that is being done in the Northern Colorado field along these lines. Mr. McDermott mentioned the strange fact that coaly materials such as mother of coal appeared to give just as good or better results under distillation than did lignite coal. Messrs. Randall, Howe, Goddard, Danford, and Nash added interesting data covering the use of pulverized fuel, and this data will be collected and offered to the Institute later in the form of a paper. Mr. Young spoke of the use of powdered coal in small units for small plants, mentioning the system now being offered by an Eastern Iron Works for small heating plants.

Jan 1, 1922

By J. F. McDermott

The problem of converting our raw coal, and especially those coals that are not suited for long storage, in other words soft, into a fuel which would be at once clean; of a high B. t, u. content and low ash, is one that has occupied the minds of many able chemical engineers and hydrocarbon technologists during the past few years. Low temperature carbonization is the present outcome of this line of research, and many methods have been evolved of recent years to turn out a serviceable, useful fuel, and at the same time, save the by-products. As most of the research and data within my experience and knowledge pertains to lignite or sub-bituminous coals, I will confine my remarks to coals of that character and grade: I might say that Colorado coals, commonly called lignite, are not in reality true lignite, but are sub-bituminous, although I have in my possession an analysis of a Colorado coal which shows a moisture of 17 per cent, volatile 31.5 per cent, fixed carbon 28.8 per cent, and an ash of 22.7 per cent, and B. t. u. less than 8,000. Even this, though useless for domestic or indeed industrial purposes, could not be classified as true lignite. However, for the purposes of this paper I will refer to these coals as lignite. Two thousand pounds, or one ton, of raw lignite carries about 20 per cent moisture. This, of course, varies in some coals, but is, I believe, a fair average. For carbonization purposes this is usually dried to a 5 per cent moisture, therefore leaving but 1,700 pounds of coal to be placed in the retort. From present knowledge, and with the average process of carbonization, 70 per cent of this coal will come out carbonized, or 1,190 pounds, to which is added about 10 per cent pitch, which is fried out as the coal passes through the retort, and which is used as a binder, making a total of 1,360 pounds of coke or carbonized coal. This is usually in appearance a dark colored, rather porous coke of about the size of pea coal. It burns without smoke and have a very high B. t. u. content. According to most authorities on this subject, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and ash constitute the only elements on which carbonization value of a coal depends, and of these hydrogen is the most important. It is claimed the value of a coal for carbonization purposes may be roughly surmised from the hydrogen content. If this is promising, that is, showing an available hydrogen content of from 3 to 5 per cent, the coal should be given a careful ultimate analysis. Should the seam, as often happens in lignite coals, show varying bands of coal of different structure or appearance, samples should be taken from each band as well as a gross sample taken down the face of the seam in the usual way. This is in order to determine what part of the seam is most promising for by-product processes. A seam showing a high nitrogen content adds to the attractiveness of the coal in carbonizing as; if available nitrogen is 2 per cent or better, it should give a very high ammonia yield.

Jan 1, 1923

Good Morning. Thank you for your kind welcome, Lyle and thank you for having me here today. I spoke at the fall meeting of the Utah state RMCMI in Price and it's nice to be invited back. I can see by the program that you have two great days of interesting and informative meetings, including the mine rescue team exhibition and the safety recognition award presentations. As you all know, I am here standing in for Dave Lauriski, who is in China with Secretary of Labor Chao. As you also know, Utah is near and dear to his heart - and so is the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. I want to assure you Dave would be here if it were at all possible. But it is my good fortune that I could come in his place. We have made great progress as an Agency thanks to the hard work and dedication of MSHA's employees. But we are always looking for new ways to solve problems and continue to send more miners home safe and healthy every day. And we have been working on some great ways to do that, including thinking strategically. During my presentation today I'm going to talk about where the Agency is in terms of our transformation to the MSHA of the 21st century, a little bit about how we got to be where we are, and then describe our roadmap to the future state. And I'm going to focus on the significance of our plan and the planning process to demonstrate the implication for the mining industry. Former President Dwight Eisenhower once said, "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." Now I do like Ike, but I would have to take exception to the first part of the sentence. I have found plans and the planning process to be indispensable - the plan to give me a roadmap to my goal, and the process to focus me on the steps I must take to get there. We all know that having a strategic plan makes the difference between success and failure. We've seen it time and time again, in business, in our lives - and in government: Having a strategic plan is crucial to success. And the process of making the strategic plan is crucial to its success. Putting together a workable strategic plan - a good roadmap - that will successfully lead you to your goals requires a thorough, careful process that takes into account each factor that you may encounter along your way to success, as well as those with whom you will travel. In order to talk about our current plan I want to take you back to three years ago, when Dave Lauriski went to Washington to lead MSHA. He knew that change was in the air. Dave was confirmed as Assistant Secretary with 30-plus years experience in the coal mining industry, and more than 20 years of experience in dealing with

Jan 1, 2004

By J. R. Kastler

It becomes my pleasant duty to call the meeting to order. This is our fiftieth regular meeting. And the session we are opening today, I am sure: will be as interesting and informative as those in the past. These gatherings present a fruitful opportunity for an exchange of experiences and ideas that will aid all of us in our work in the various segments within the coal industry. Walter Johnson and his Program Committee have arranged a wonderful program for us; Walter, due to his standing in the industry and his large acquaintanceship with the leaders of the industry, has really gone to town in bringing outstanding speakers and personalities to deliberate with us in our proceedings. A lot of things have happened since we last met; in the operating end, and in safety we have made marvellous headway, but we have slipped badly in the marketing end. However, I am sure the messages and discussion you will hear will point out ways and means of overcoming at least some of our difficulties. Before we get on with the program, I want to thank our hard working Secretary, Fred Whiteside, who, by the way, is a charter member of the Institute and has attended every one of the fifty meetings we have held; and the various committees who have been meeting for the past several months and who have arranged this fine program you are to hear. I hope all of you enjoy the convention; the business as well as the social sessions.

Jan 1, 1954

By C. Arthur Carlson

"It now becomes my privilege and duty to call to order this fifty-first meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. "I bid you a hearty welcome and I know by your attendance at these meetings you will gain a great deal of valuable information, as well as have a wonderful time. "We have been very ably represented by Mr. John H. Emrick as General Chairman, assisted by our good friend Mr. Fred W. Whiteside, our secretary and treasurer. I know they have worked very hard in selecting the various committees, who in turn - by the looks of our program have gone all out to prepare material that should be of great interest to us. I trust we will be attentive to the subjects presented and freely enter into the discussions, also relating our problems and experiences. I am sure this will prove both profitable and beneficial to all present. "The main purpose of these conventions is to become acquainted with each other, renew old acquaintances, talk over our problems, and have a little fun and relaxation from our every day routine. "Let us not forget the manufacturers, the distributors, the operators, or the press because it is through their splendid support that this organization is successful. "Since our last meeting we have gained many new members, whom we especially welcome. We are sorry to have lost a few. I am mindful, at this time, of two very good members from my home state who have passed away, Walter Wetzel, a former president of this institute, and Lee Alger, at the time of his death, Vice-President from Utah. We also lost very recently our assistant Secretary-Treasurer, Everret Davis. These men contributed a great deal to the institute and the coal industry in general. I am sure they are greatly missed by all who knew them."

Jan 1, 1955

By Sam Andrews

Mr. President, Officers and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: This is my first attempt to prepare and read a paper before your association. The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I understand, was formed for the purpose of increasing knowledge relating to coal mining in all its various branches by study, research and discussion. In writing my paper, I have tried to be as practical as I can, at the same time, present my arguments so that they can be easily understood. When I use the word science, I mean organized common sense. I humbly ask my hearers to be a little patient, while I read my paper, and be "to its faults a little blind, and to its virtues a trifle kind". Western Europe is said to be the cradle of the coal mining industry. We are told that the Ancient Britons were acquainted with the use of coal long before the Romans invaded and conquered their country. The Romans were never too proud to learn from the outer barbarians, and possibly acquired the precious secret from them: We are told that it was not until the 13th century, that the coal mining industry, assumed any noticeable importance in Britain, and on the Continent. In the year 1259 Henry the 3rd granted a charter to the freemen of New Castle on Tyne, allowing them to mine coal. For a long time it was used in the arts and manufactures only, wood continuing to be the common domestic fuel. As has been the case with almost every great benefit, the introduction of coal as a fuel was stoutly resisted at first, and we find its use prohibited in the city of London in the reign of Edward II, by Royal proclamation ; which was soon discovered to be injurious and foolish, and consequently withdrawn. It is interesting perhaps, to know how this Royal proclamation was brought about. A lady of the Royal household was riding in her coach one day through a village in which coal was burned as a fuel, and she suffered such a cough by inhaling the coal smoke that she decided to call a council of suffragetts, who ultimately decided that the burning of coal was injurious to their health and complexion. They drafted out a petition and presented it to the king, who speedily issued the order that no coal was to be burned in the city of London. The penalty for disobeying this order was death by hanging. We are informed of one poor man who continued to burn a lump of' coal on his fire in winter time; he was arrested, sent to prison and condemned to death; the judge in passing the sentence solemnly stating that if he was not allowed to get a fire that was hot enough in this world, he felt that he surely would be allowed one in the next.

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 2000

By M. H. Forester

The Bituminous Coal Industry has for the past year been faced with a most serious problem. I am sure that you have had your own individual and local problems, as do we all. In my thirty years of practical experience with coal mining, I have never found an operating man nor a coal mine without problems. The very nature of mining, with so many unknown factors involved, precludes the absence of problems. But they are not insurmountable, and one should not dwell on them interminably. They should be recognized as a challenge to our ability and ingenuity to solve them, and once the proper solution is found, it should be applied and the problem dismissed. However, we find ourselves at the moment in the midst of a serious challenge to our very existence. In the early thirties, many in the industry welcomed the re-establishment of Unionism as a balance wheel, in the belief that the stabilization of wage scales would also stabilize prices and eliminate disastrous price cutting practices. The ultimate effects of having twenty-six years of benevolent paternalism in the administrative branches of Federal and State Governments with their labor courting policies, could hardly have been anticipated. And so with wages spiralling under government sponsorship, we have finally reached the point where competitive fuels, such as natural gas and oil are more attractive to the consumer, from the economic angle of cents per BTU cost, than coal.

Jan 1, 1953

By Ted Schwinden

It's my pleasure to welcome the Rocky Mountain Coal Institute to Montana. Now that you've ended a 74 year history of meeting outside our borders, I hope you'll be back more often. Even if I can't convince you to come back before 2060, when another 74 years will be up, I'm confident the Kalispell and Flathead Lake area will do the persuading for me. In recent weeks, I've made a number of speeches around the state pointing out just how wrong the revenue projections in Montana's state government made in April of '85 were when we came to April of '86. Since the middle of this month, Montana's legislators have been in Helena struggling to balance a state budget that, by the end of fiscal year '87, threatened to be some $88 million in the red. Other western states reliant on natural resource and agricultural economies have found themselves caught in the same deflationary spiral. The "window of opportunity" I proposed and the 1985 Montana Legislature passed, couldn't have been opened at a more difficult time. What was envisioned as an incentive to expand Montana's coal production, and our tax base, ran aground on low oil prices and excess hydroelectric power. De- spite the one-third severance tax rebate offered on new coal production, year-to-date figures published in the June 2nd Coal Week show that production in Montana is down almost 10 per- cent from last year. Again, we're not alone. Production in Wyoming is down 8 percent and in North Dakota, it has dropped 13 percent. An over- all 3 percent production decline in western states looks even worse when contrasted against a 12 percent increase for your eastern competitors. Montana's "window of opportunity" had the potential to be a significant signal to your industry. That potential was quickly tempered by the inability of Arab nations to stabilize world energy prices. If any of us had forgotten, the last twelve months have reminded western states that the well-being of our natural resource economies has a tremendous impact on the ability of all levels of government to provide services. The past year has also driven home that in the world of business and in the business of the world, risk-taking is still the name of the game. The Western Governors recognize the problems facing this industry - and our states - and we're prepared to fight for the future of western coal. In the past two decades, legitimate environmental concerns have created a vast body of new legislation affecting coal producers. The industry has been required to meet new reclamation standards - tough regulations relating to ground water, air quality and wildlife habitat. To the industry's credit, coal companies have hired professionals with the technical know-how to do it right. Rather than considering reclamation laws to be an unreasonable burden, today's coal company is more likely to view its reclamation efforts as a source of corporate pride. In a sense, the industry and the agencies which regulate it have matured together . . . although at times OSM is reluctant to admit that either of us capable of or willing to play by the rules. Certainly some abuses exist and OSM's oversight has been helpful in ensuring parity between those states willing to comply and those that would rather defy federal law. Nonetheless, penalizing the more modem and responsible western coal industry for abuses that occur elsewhere is both unfair and counterproductive. Federal penalties range from "cruel and unusual" reporting requirements to the proposed electricity tax that would effectively force utilities and ratepayers who have already met the sulphur emission standards to subsidize those who have dodged their cleanup responsibilities. As a member of the Alliance for Acid Rain Control, I have joined corporate leaders, academicians, environmental representa-

Jan 1, 1986