Search Documents

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 Michael L. Jones

Outline ?Background ?Identify and quantify CO2 sources ?Consider options for CO2 separation and capture ?Review options for sequestration/reuse ?Determine best option for managing CO2

Jan 1, 2008

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

By C. P. Crawford

Bureau of Mines Technical Paper 172, by S. H. Katz and H. C. Porter, entitled "Effects of Moisture on the Spontaneous Heating of Stored Coal", says at the outset, "Spontaneous fires in storage piles of bituminous coal' have been the source of trouble and loss since the industrial utilization of coal began. In Europe the idea arose that spontaneous combustion is more liable to happen during wet weather than during dry. Statements favoring or opposing this idea have crept into the literature. Conflicting conclusions, based on experiment as well as opinions based on observations of various degrees of reliability, are given in most of the recorded discussions of the subject. "Because of the uncertainty of the effect of moisture and its seeming importance among the conditions that affect spontaneous combustion in stored coal, the work described in this paper was undertaken by the Bureau of Mines. The experiments showed that a coal from Illinois oxidized faster when dry, whereas a sample of Pittsburgh coal oxidized faster when moist. These discordant results and similarly inconsistent results from the observations of different investigators may be coupled with the fact that under actual conditions of, storing, both coal and air always contain a considerable amount of moisture." The foregoing report of the investigations of the Bureau demonstrates that the mystery of spontaneous combustion has not yet been solved. This fact adds to the fascination of the subject. I became interested in the matter about ten years ago in observing what was probably one of the best exhibitions of this phenomenon. The old dump at Castle Gate No. 1 Mine contained boney coal and track cleanings generally. In winter when snow fell upon this old dump, the snow was soon melted by the heat of the dump which was comparatively warm at all times. Within 48 hours afterward little blue flames were in evidence on the surface of the pile. Few of the gas feeders were sufficiently constant to maintain a steady flame at any given point, but shifting emissions of gas were ignited one by another, resulting in a continuous popping and apparent running about of the flames. Another interesting exhibition of spontaneous heating was to be seen a few years ago in the storage coal piles of the local sugar factories. This coal was piled in concrete lined pits and the latter were filled with water. However, or this occasion the coal extended above the surface of the water. At every plant where this condition existed the coal was affected heating, and in each case the affected area was in a plane horizontal to and from 8 to 1.4 inches above the water level. The height of the hot area above the surface of the water appeared to be affected by the fineness of the coal. It is well known that oily rags have a tendency to heat when allowed to accumulate in some location protected from free air circulation. For some reason, as yet unknown, this does not apply to petroleum or its derivatives. Now, the most common explanation of spontaneous combustion is that the combustible material oxidizes by being brought into contact with air in the presence of moisture, the theory being that the moisture acts as a catalytic agent. My theory is that spontaneous combustion is due to oxidation of combustible matter by free oxygen carried in solution by a liquid, the oxidation taking place only as, when, and at the place where this oxygen is released from solution by the evaporation of the liquid. Also, this oxidation takes place to some degree regardless of the condition of the combustible-whether it be lump coal, coal dust, straw, wheat flour, coke, or any other combustible but, as the speed of oxidation is directly influenced by temperature, it follows that spontaneous combustion only becomes noticeable or serious in cases where the resulting heat' cannot escape as fast as it is generated.

Jan 1, 1925

By D. Harrington

Discussion was prepared by A. L. Jones and Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, read by Mr. Jones; by C. B. Officer, of the Sullivan Machinery Company, read by Mr. J. H. Emrick; by Mr. D. C. McKeehan, Chief Electrician of the Union Pacific Coal Company; and by Mr. L. C. Ilsley, of the United States Bureau of Mines, read by Mr. K. P. Marshall. Their prepared answers are inserted in the body of Mr. Harrington's paper, as answers to his questions. Introductory Remarks PRESIDENT MARKS: We have made special assignments for the discussion of this paper, and I believe these discussions are to be answered in sections, and as the different sections are read applying to this paper, we will just have a brief discussion on that particular point and proceed to the next and try and expedite this discussion as much as possible, be- cause I realize a good many of you have something to say. The first discussion is by Mr. Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, Salt Lake City. MR. F. A. RANK (General Electric Company, Salt Lake City, Utah) : Mr. Chairman, while my name has been put on the program as being the one to discuss this paper, I believe Mr. Jones of our company has prepared a discussion on it, and therefore will let him talk in my place. MR. A. L. JONES: I think that it is passing the buck. However, Mr. Rank sent me a copy of the paper, and I read it over with a good deal of interest. There is one thing I want to say: Mr. Shubart, in his breezy letters, stated this paper was to be written by Mr. Harrington, assisted by a number of manufacturing and operating companies, among them the General Electric Company. We did not function. The paper was completed, and we were not consulted, and I believe that is true of the others. After reading the paper over, I dictated a few notes which I want to read, to give you the view-point that we have on the subject We do not want to minimize electrical dangers, or in any way slow down high-grade construction maintenance, but there is such a thing as overstating the case. A. L. Jones, Engineer, General Electric Co., Denver, Colo. Mr. Harrington's paper in some ways pleases me very much, but in others gives me quite a different sensation. It is so full of condemnation of most existing practices and conditions that it reminds me somewhat of the nerve-racked mother who sent an older brother to see what Willie was doing and to tell him to "stop it." His recital of electrical dangers is harrowing and if I felt it were a true picture I should feel that any of us having anything to do with the recommending or selling of electrical equipment for mines would be party to a crime. Fortunately all mines are not gaseous nor is all dust explosive or we

Jan 1, 1926

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

By Kevin Whipkey

How is Improvement Being Achieved ? Section Equipment ?Mine Layout/Projections ? Work Schedule ? Maintenance ? Management

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1924

By Fredrick D. Palmer

The World is Turning to Coal Peabody?s View ?We believe the world is increasingly energy-short, led by unprecedented demand from population centers and economic hubs in Asia, the Middle East and South America ?This occurs as:?Traditional energy sources are clearly constrained, requiring coal-based alternatives?Energy-rich nations leverage political gain from their assets, and nations urgently look to improve energy security ?In this environment:?Oil, coal and gas face a greater long-term convergence, ?Coal?s traditional regionalized nature becomes global, and ?Coal?s compact energy form becomes an attractive source for liquids and substitute natural gas ?The world is blessed with an abundance of coal to help meet all human energy needs

Jan 1, 2008

President W. K. Dennison, Jr., called the final session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order, and introduced H. A. Cornell, Portland Cement Association, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Mr. Cornell explained that the Portland Cement Association was not a sales organization, but is supported by the major manufacturers of portland cement. The research laboratories of the association are constantly endeavoring to improve the quality of cement, as well as promote new markets, new uses, and new ideas. The association works with engineers, contractors and universities, making available to them the results of their research. Mr. Cornell stated that numerous booklets and bulletins were available on request for any phase of construction with concrete. Mr. Cornell presented a film, "How to Make Quality Concrete," to the members of the Institute. D. W. Lyke, General Electric Apparatus Service Shop, Denver, Colorado, was introduced by President Dennison, who presented a film, "A-Hunting He Would Go." Following the film, Mr. Lyke stated that his firm was not confined to electrical equipment, but to all types of equipment, and asked the members to feel free to call for assistance at any time. These two films concluded the Manufacturer's Hour, and President Dennison opened the final business meeting of the session. Robert F. Bowie, of the Auditing Committee, read the Treasurer's Report, and complimented Mr. Whiteside on the commendable state in which the books were found. The Treasurer's Report is as follows:

Jan 1, 1960

Pictured on these pages are the eight RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1991-92 year followed by a brief profile. All winners were present as guests of the Institute at the June convention in Durango, Colorado to receive recognition at the Institute Awards Luncheon Monday, June 29, 1992. Each state vice president served as the host for the collegiate winner. In addition to receiving a plaque from the Scholarship Chairman, Dr. Matthew Hrebar, each winner receives $750 tuition credit for the coming academic year. As this is a continuing award, the winners from the previous year will receive another $750 for tuition credit in their senior year if they have maintained good academic standing and are recommended by their university. A mident from each of the eight RMCMI member states is selected from among Board approved institutions. Criteria for these awards to be made in the spring annually is (1) That the award be made to a sophomore student and used as tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U.S. citizen and a resident of the member state. (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. The scholarship program includes curricula other than those in the mining departments, but in the engineering disciplines, such as geology, mineral processing and metallurgy. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his firm. Through annual donations of $100 or more, the Patrons of the Institute fund the scholar- ship program and the various vice presidents con- tribute the travel expenses to convention for these outstanding young collegiates. Donations to this worthwhile program may be made payable to RMCMI Scholarship and mailed to the RMCMI Office, 3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 324, Lakewood, CO 80215. Profiles of the 1992 Scholarship Winners: [ ] ARIZONA WINNER BRIAN C. TRAWEEK University of Arizona - Tucson, AZ The winner from Arizona, Brian Traweek, attending the University of Arizona, is a mining engineering major from Tucson, Arizona. Brian is the treasurer of the Society of Mining Engineers Student Chapter and spends many of his weekends working at the school's San Xavier underground mine. He has had summer work experience at ASARCO's Ray Unit. [ ] COLORADO WINNER MARK ANDREW NORRIS Colorado School of Mines Golden, CO The winner from Colorado, Mark Norris, attending the Colorado School of Mines, is a mining engineering major from Eaton, Colorado. Mark is active in varsity swimming, intramural sports, and Army ROTC Pathfinders and Pershing Rifles. Mark is a co-designer of the Clear Creek County, Colorado, abandoned mine hazard rescue team plan though an introductory engineering course at Mines. [ ] MONTANA WINNER MARK J. BREN Montana College of Mineral Science & Technology, Butte, MT The winner from Montana, Mark Bren, attending Montana Tech, is a mining engineering major from Butte, Montana. Mark is an excellent student and active in the student chapter of the Society of Mining Engineers. He has worked at a gold mine in Montana, in the Earthquake Studies Office at Montana Tech, and a volunteer on the Neversweat and Washoe Railroad.

Jan 1, 1992

At the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, G. S. Rice, Chief Mining Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, announced the definition of a gassy mine. This definition has been awaited with much interest, especially by the Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. It applies to the whole area of all mines, any part of which is on the public domain of the United States. Consequently it will be of wide application in the western part of this country. The safety committee of the R. M. C. M. I. has been hopeful that the Institute would adopt this definition without exception as the codes of rules to be recommended at all mines in the Rocky Mountain area. The statement follows: "The U. S. Bureau of Mines believes that all coal mines are potentially gassy; but for purposes of administration in respect to prevention of explosions and fires, the Bureau recommends the following classification: "Class 1 coal mine-A practically non-gassy mine in which flammable gas in excess of 0.05 per cent cannot be found by systematic search. "Class 2. coal mine-A slightly gassy mine in which (a) flammable gas has been found, ? but in quantity less than two per cent in still air in any active or unsealed-abandoned workings; or (b) flammable gas can be found, but in quantity less than four per cent, in some place from which the ventilating current has been shut off for a period of one hour; or (c) flammable gas can be found,* but in quantity less than one-fourth per cent in a split** of the ventilating current; or (d) flamamble gas is found in quantity greater than' specified rate*** of not more than 25 cu. ft. per minute. "Class 3 coal mine- A gassy mine in which flammable gas is found in quantity greater than specified for a Class 22 coal mine. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING DECISION NO. 3 "(A) Flammable gas found in coal mines is, with rare exceptions, methane. In coal-mining fields where natural gas is found in lower geologic horizons by deep wells which pass through or nearby the coal mines, there have been rare instances of la leakage from the well. Natural gas is chiefly methane; that constituent almost always forms more than 85 per cent of the whole, but it usually contains ethane, propane and traces of butane also. Therefore if the latter gases are found in mine air it is an indication of leakage. The lower limit of explosibility of methane-air mixture when there is turbulence of five per cent and of natural-gas-air mixtures with about ten per cent ethane and associated hydro-carbon gases is 4.6 per cent. The limit therefore varies with the character of the mixture. " (B) To determine the proper classification of a coal mine, it is advisable that systematic testing and sampling be done at least three times in a period of not less than 72 hours. All tests and samples of the mine air, except one, must show an inflammable-gas content less than the maximum limit of the class to which the mine is assigned. In other words, a tolerance of one test or analysis may be permitted to provide for a mistake or a very exceptional occurrence. "(C) When a new mine is being opened in a coal field where existing mines are generally gassy, it is common sense to assume that similar conditions will be found in the new mine, and its development and equipment should be based upon the expectation that it will be assigned to Class 3."

Jan 1, 1926

By Wm. H. Woodhead

Improved methods of mining have accompanied the introduction of mechanical loading, of which there are a great many varieties, but this multiplicity of mining brings new problems and greatly increases the importance of managing over a few years ago. Few mines operating today have been opened with the intention of mechanizing throughout. The problem of mechanization is to change over a mine heretofore operated by hand methods and to select machinery that will fit the old system with the least number of changes, the aim being not to disrupt or to completely change the original plan. The organization of mechanical and electrical forces is a problem in mechanical loading, and each individual mine presents its own problems. Plans which may succeed in one mine may fail in another and upon the management rests the responsibility of deciding the best method in each case.

Jan 1, 1930

The final session on Wednesday morn¬ing was given over to a panel discussion of safety questions submitted by members of the institute. Mr. Murray presided, and Lyman Fearn, chief, Wyoming Dept. of Mines & Minerals, Rock Springs, Wyo., was moderator. Members of the panel were: John A. Garcia, chief mine inspector, New Mexico; Leonard Ford, mine foreman, Frederick- mine, CF&I, Valdez, Colo.; A. C. Moschetti, chief, coal mine inspection branch, USBM, Denver; Kirk V. Cammack, mining engineer, USGS, Denver; Joel N. Van Sant, chief engineer, St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Coal Co., Raton, N. M.; Emery Olsen, safety engineer, coal mine and quarries, U. S. Steel Corp., Dragerton, Utah; F. J. Peternell, safety engineer, Union Pacific Coal Co., Rock Springs; and J. J. Reddy, mine inspector, Colorado Dept. of Mines, Grand Junction, Colo. On a question concerning the effect of roof-bolting on the maintenance of a breakline in pillar removal, Mr. Van Sant reported that some experience at his company's mines indicate that wood supports are not necessary to make the break although shooting is sometimes done to get it. Furthermore, bolting improves the roof in these pillar areas and extraction has increased about 20%. Mr. Fearn concurred in describing operations in parts of Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1953

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Carlyle F. Gronning, Chairman, Industrial Commission, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. The first speaker was John A. Fagnant, Vice President-Sales, Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming. Subject - "Open Pit Coal Mining, Western States." Mr. Fagnant is a graduate of Colorado School of Mines, 1937 Degree, Metalurgical Engineer His career in the mineral industry began at the Arthur Mill of Kennecott Copper Company. For nine years he was with Allis Chalmer Company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as a Sales Engineer in the Mining Machinery Division. Following five years in private business, he joined The Kemmerer Coal Company as a special projects engineer specializing in coal carbonization. He was assigned the job of Sales Manager in 1968 and promoted to Vice President of Sales in 1970. Member of A.I.M.M.E.

Jan 1, 1975

[Arsulich, Thomas Mechanical Engineer, S.A.E. House, Laramie, Wyoming Barrett, A. Lee joy Mfg., Co., Research Engineer, Franklin, Pa. Bartlett, Rulon Salesman, 265 S. Seventh East, Salt Lake City, Utah Beauchamp, Paul N Goodman Mfg. Co., Sales Engineer, 2509 S. Monroe, Denver, Colorado Boyle, J. J Mine Superintendent, Roundup, Montana ?Burnell, Patrick H Gebo, Wyoming]

Jan 1, 1950

The 74th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Ralph Moore, Vice President, Operations, Westmoreland Resources, Hardin, Montana, called the meeting to order. The membership was asked to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. He welcomed members and guests and thanked Park Lamborn, the Program Chairman, for the excellent speakers and program he engineered. He mentioned the cancellation of our golf tournament due to the conflicting dates with the Annual Jerry Ford Invitational Golf Tournament. He thanked all of the committees with a special "thank you" to Loren Linville and Gussie Whiteside. He introduced President, Shirl C. McArthur. President and General Manager, American Coal Company, Huntington, Utah. A biographical sketch follows: Mr. McArthur, a native of Huntington, Utah, began his coal mining career shortly after graduating from North Emery High School and worked his way up through the ranks, having worked at every job available underground. For example, he dug coal with a "banjo" at the Independent Coal and Coke Company in Kenilworth. In the summer of 1941, he worked at Straight Canyon Mine as a timberman and advanced to section foreman in four years. He was face boss for part of the time. In October 1946, he received a call from the LDS Church General Welfare Board (presided over then by Marion G. Romney) and took over as superintendent of the Church Mine. He operated in that capacity until the mine became privately owned in 1971. In 1961, Mr. McArthur formed Castle Valley Mining company, and in 1970, he organized American Coal Company, which he presently owns and operates.

Jan 1, 1978

Jan 1, 2000

By William M. Wallace

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject, "Shake It for Results," may or may not suggest just what is to be shaken, or just what results are to be obtained. I can assure you that if you are thinking about anything outside the realm of pure mining application you have come to the wrong meeting, and if this be the case, you have come to hear a subject discussed that I am not prepared to undertake-at the moment, at least. At the very beginning of time, results were definitely obtained by shaking. If you will recall, Eve shook a certain tree of forbidden fruit-need I recount to you the results that were, and are still, being credited to that bit of engineering? To get closer to the subject at hand, it is the intent of this paper to touch generally on the shaking, principally the vibratory shaking, of materials on a piece, or pieces, of perforated metal or screen cloth. Through the evolution of such a motion we find that great strides have been made toward a highly efficient "operation which is an essential factor in the mining world of today. The object of the shaking motion is to more efficiently separate one size material from another, according to the openings in the screening medium over which it is passed. Sizing is an important operation in every ore dressing, coal prepara¬tion or other mineral-preparing plant for reducing the product to a form more concentrated or more convenient for utilization than that in which it was mined. In coal preparation, market requirements, convenience, custom, and efficiency in combustion necessitate grading mined coal by sizes. All ore-dressing or coal preparation plants therefore must have what is called screening, sizing, or grading apparatus.

Jan 1, 1941