Search Documents

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

The Sixty-First Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:00 a.m. by Past President Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Claude introduced Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc., Denver, Colorado. His introduction of President Bridwell follows: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege and pleasure to open this session of the Sixty-first Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. My particular assignment is to introduce to you (those of you at least who do not know him) our Acting President, who for now we will call "Brid."

Jan 1, 1965

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

By J. H. Emrick

When I was asked to read a paper to you, I wondered what idea I could bring before you which would be interesting and which would be helpful in your work in operating coal mines. The Institute has been studying ways and means of increasing the safety and efficiency of mine operations. Almost every subject along this line has been discussed from time to time. In thinking the matter over it occurred to me that there was one thing used by practically all coal mining companies in considerably large quantities and which in many cases does not receive the attention it should. It is the cutter bit placed in the cutter chains on coal mining machines. Coal mining machines have been repeatedly improved during the last twenty-five years until their efficiency and convenience have reached a high level. The generating units making electrical power to operate them also have been developed to a similar degree. This machinery has been in- stalled at a great expense to coal mining companies and the installation made for the sole purpose of pulling coal cutter bits through coal. Why not then give these cutter bits some attention so as to see that they do their work as efficiently as their driving and propelling units? The consideration of this question easily divides itself into three principal parts-First, the kina of steel out of which to make the bit; Second, the proper form or shape to give it; and Third, the tempering of the bit. Let us discuss them in that order. There have been tried at different times' various grades of steel for cutter bit uses. The cheaper steels, having a very low carbon content (.10 to .30 per cent carbon) have proved un- satisfactory because such steel cannot be tempered so as to produce a satisfactory cutting tool. Because of the low carbon content, it cannot be hardened to retain its cutting edge. It dulls quickly, bends easily on striking any hard obstruction in the coal, and so requires constant resetting to its original form. The high priced alloy steels when properly shaped and tempered will give a bit that would make a clean, even cut in the coal if no impurities were encountered. Such a condition is rarely found. Alloy steel is quite brittle and on striking impurities, such as sulphur balls or a sand spar, is readily broken and so the loss of material through these broken bits and the high price paid for it more than offset all the other advantages which this steel has shown in cutting. Experience has shown that steel having approximately .70 per cent carbon and from .25 to .35 per cent manganese will give the most economical results. Some mines have obtained better results by using a steel of slightly higher carbon content and in some cases a grade of tool steel has been used. The disadvantage of using a steel having too much carbon is that it can easily be spoiled in the black- smith shop by overheating. Steels having a carbon content of about .70 per cent have a sufficiently wide range of temperatures at which they can be forged and hardened so that with ordinary care and attention they are not likely to be burned. Steel of this quality, therefore, has been found to be the most practicable because of its reasonable cost, ease in working and tempering and general durability. In the early days of mining machines, comparatively few bits were used because each machine required but a few bits because there were but

Jan 1, 1925

By Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

The Sixtieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:10 a.m. by Past President Mike Zakotnik, Jr., General Superintendent, The Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming. Mike introduced Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals and Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah; and President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. President's Address Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Min- ing Institute, guests, visitors and friends: I feel this is a distinct honor to talk to you on the occasion of this 60th regular meeting of the Institute. I once assumed this would be the Institute's 60th birthday, but later found that the first meeting was held in the State Capitol at Denver on November 12, 1912, at which time a comparatively small group of operators duly organized the Institute; a Mr. Weitzel of Colorado Fuel & Iron Company was then elected president and our late and dearly remembered Fred W. Whiteside, whose wife Gussie now carries Fred's work forward, was elected secretary. From Fred's records, early meetings were held semi-annually at rather irregular intervals, so that this 60th meeting is approximately the 52nd birthday of the organization and I am number 44 to serve as president. This latter development, I am sure, was conjured up last year by certain members at Glenwood Springs when I was absent. Anyway, I am honored and trust 'that these sessions will be both interesting and instructive in helping us on our way in the coal business.

Jan 1, 1964

In the absence of. J. B. Marks, President, the meeting was called to order by George B. Pryde, Past President. After organization, the meeting was turned over to W. J. Reid, Vice-President for Utah. A moving picture, "The Story of Dynamite," was shown by the courtesy of the E. I. DuPont de Nemours Company. This provoked a great deal of discussion and many questions were asked A. E. Anderson, who described the paper. John M. Jennings read a description of the United States Fuel Company's new Hiawatha tipple, after which the meeting adjourned to Hiawatha for lunch and a visit to the tipple and outside workings of the Hiawatha mine. Thursday, August 27, 1925 Meeting called to order at 9:30 by Vice-President W. J. Reid. Papers were read on the subject of "Mechanical Loading," by A. W. Dickinson, 0. G. Sharrer, and the paper of Glen A. Knox was read by the Secretary. General Superintendent George A. Murphy, of the Spring Canyon Coal Company, read a description of their newly completed tipple. The meeting then adjourned for Spring Canyon where lunch was served, and the afternoon spent in viewing the new. tipple. At 8:00 p. m., D. Harrington read a paper on "Rock Dusting," L. C. Clare read a paper on "Mudite's Relation to Nature," and at 11 p. m. the meeting adjourned. Friday, August 28, 1925 Meeting called to order at 9:30 a. m. by Vice-President W. J. Reid. The discussion of preceding papers continued. Paper by Joseph Harrington on "Domestic Fuel Stokers" was read by the Secretary. The expected paper by Mayne Read was not presented as Mr. Read was unable to get to Price on account of railroad conditions. The papers on the "Theory of Spontaneous Combustion," by C. P. Crawford, were also omitted through an error of the Secretary, and particular attention is called to the publication of these two articles. The new tipple of the Columbia Steel Company was described by T. C. Harvey, after which the meeting adjourned for Columbia, where luncheon was served and the nine visited. After the visit to Columbia, the delegates were taken to the Sunnyside mine of the Utah Fuel Company, where an hour was spent. Upon motion, unanimously adopted, the Secretary was instructed to express the sincere appreciation of the delegates to the Price Chamber of Commerce, the Civic Association, the Price News-Advocate, Harry Keene, Harry Duberstein, John M. Jennings, Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, and Geo. A. Murphy of the Financial Committee, for the complete success in handling the meeting of the Institute. The report of the Membership Committee on the following was accepted: R. E. Birchard, Standardville, Utah. Dave Brown, Spring Canyon, Utah. William Burt, Hiawatha, Utah. A. J. Coats, Fort Collins, Colo. R. P. Fitch, Rains, Utah.

Jan 1, 1925

By D. A. Stout

The Rouse Mine, belonging to the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, earlier known as the Santa Clara Mine, is located at Rouse, Huerfano County, Colorado. Operations at this property started about the year 1899, after the old Rouse mine had been drowned out by a large flow of water coming from the strata underlying the Cameron seam. The present new Rouse mine was opened by a slope on what is familiarly known as the Walsen seam in the Walsenburg district. This slope has an average grade of 12 per cent bearing approximately, south 45 degrees west, and having at the present time a total length of 6300 feet. This seam has an average thickness at that property of five and one-half feet; however, there are sections of the mine where the thickness is from seven to eight feet. The mine has been developed. since the time it was opened on what is known as the Room and Pillar system ; water level entries have been driven right and left off the slope, and in some cases the rooms are driven directly up the pitch; and in other cases entries have been driven with rooms turned on water level courses. The first flow of water of which we have ally record was encountered in 1901 in what was called the "Second West Entry." This flow, however, was small, and did not require the installation of any large pump unit. From 1901 up until 1909 the flow increased normally as the field was developed. In January, 1909, the first large inflow occurred, coming from a break in the seventh west entry, making a total flow at that time of about 500 gallons per minute. This necessitated putting in larger pumps, and the first pump to be installed of the centrifugal type was a 600 gallon Worthington. By the year 1911 the water had increased, due to additional development, until it was found necessary to install an additional 600 gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump. In December, 1912, a break occurred in the eighth west entry, between the fourth and sixth cross entries, making 2000 gallons per minute. This flow decreased after a period of three weeks some 500 gallons, but on account of the quantity of water then being handled at the mine, and in view of the fact that we needed some reserve pumping equipment to take care of these flows, and additional 600-gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump was installed in June, 1913. An the latter part of 1914 a 250 gallon Reese roturbo was installed to take care of the water, which was being made in the lower workings of the slope. We found after the installation of the centrifugal pumps that the water decreased to a certain degree in the uppermost workings. This led us to believe that the field was being drained, more or less, and the head reduced ; however, our ideas in regard to this were again upset in December, 1915, when we encountered a flow in room 6 off the first cross entry on the ninth east entry. This flow was not as large as previous flows had been, but made 200 gallons per minute.

Jan 1, 1921

The Friday morning session of, the Forty-seventh Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called, to order in the junior Ballroom, Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, at 9:20 o'clock a. in., with Mr. Paul L. Shields presiding. CHAIRMAN SHIELDS: Let us get started, gentlemen. We are late now. From the looks of this agenda we are going to have a busy forenoon. The first item on this program is a talk on "The Second Underground. Gasification Experiment at Gorgas, Alabama," by Mr. James L. Elder.

Jan 1, 1951

MR. ENZI: hank you very much. I'm sure there?s a lot of you out there just realizing that Rock Springs and Gillette is not one city. I'm sure there's a lot of you wondering why a person from a town who has the image in the national media that the town of Gillette has is talking to you about image. I had a person this morning ask me if Gillette wasn't the end of the world. The only response I can give is "no, but you can see it from there." We have been researched a lot and, I realize, we've been very lucky because I've observed that researchers cause cancer in rats. In fact a wonder drug is one that has no effect on mice. In fact I've been thinking of posting a sign in my office that would read "due to the large number of interviews by journalists who already have their articles written, we would most respectfully request that anyone wishing to insult the city of Gillette, please limit themselves to 3,000 words or 15 insults, whichever is shorter." I don't know if any of you saw the article in Playboy about three months ago on the city of Gillette. What you probably don't realize about that article is that that was an attempt by Playboy magazine to see if they couldn't change their image to a national municipal magazine. I think it's important to know Gillette is the frontier city, a pioneer city, it's a shopping center for northeast Wyoming and most importantly, we're the energy capital of the nation. We're on the threshold of the Powder River Basin and we will be the nation's energy solution. Besides coal, we're, already the heart of the state's leading oil producing area and we have vast uranium resources. But I, want to tell you the biggest resource that we have is, the people who have come to live in Gillette. You will find Gillette a busy, young, pulsating community. We're experiencing the excitement of growth. We're welcoming a higher percentage of newcomers than any other town in the nation. Yes, growth to us is exciting. Where else can you get ten years of experience in two years? We realize you can't maintain the status quo. Growth can be painful but not as painful as the alternative, recession and depression. For a little bit of background, we are now at 16,000 people and we have another 4,000 people who live on the outside but look like they live on the inside. The Census Bureau says that we have, 11,225 people but we have that many people in a traffic jam on the Douglas Highway in one day. I?ll , tell you about a few things happening in Gillette. I think it's very important to emphasize that I didn't , do these things; it's the youth and the energy of the community that has done these things. Right now the city of Gillette has 32 major projects underway. We have water for 50,000 people and we're seeking more water. The city in 1975 was 1 .8 square miles. Last year alone we annexed I square mile. We build 10 miles of paved streets a year. For the last 8 years we've doubled our parks' budget. I

Jan 1, 1982

The twenty-ninth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11:30 o'clock a. m., Monday, May 26, 1930, President B. W. Snodgrass presiding: PRESIDENT SNODGRASS (condensed report): The meeting will please come to order. As President of your Institute, I take pleasure in welcoming you to this convention, and to those who come from outside of the city, I take pleasure in Welcoming you to the city of Denver. This is the first convention at Denver in fifteen months. I hope that the annual rather than the semi-annual meetings will prove satisfactory to all, and that no mistake has been made in that respect. We are gathered together here to discuss problems common to all of us, and I am sure that we will profit by such discussion. We have with us, outside of the membership of our organization, representatives of two other organizations, Mr. Callbreath of the American Mining Congress, and Mr. Huntress of the National Coal Association. We will be honored by having them with us, and we shall expect to hear from them during this meeting.

Jan 1, 1930

By W. T. Ferguson

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It seems particularly appropriate that we come at this time to make a report on a phase of mechanical, mining of coal which had its birth in this region and was cradled and nurtured here until it assumed a lusty manhood that has made its presence felt in every coal field in this country and in foreign fields as well. More than twenty years ago shaker conveyors were introduced into the states covered by your Institute, and immediately, forward looking men saw that here were possibilities for the operator's dream of a continuous flow of coal from face to tipple, if this latest device could be made self-loading. The skill and ingenuity of men in the Rock Springs district quickly brought this about and in but a few short years .more coal was being loaded by Duckbills in this field than by any other means. Not content with this outstanding success, still other men dreamed of having this same Duckbill moved across the face under its own power, and so this same district produced the first power swing Duckbill.

Jan 1, 1947

By R. R. Knill

With the advent of mechanical loading the need of definite information has become more apparent. The co-ordination of all the individual units of operation has become very necessary From these two essential features in running a mechanized coal mine has come the demand for the "time study." The time study is nothing more or less than the recording of each operation together with the time of clay or the total time expended during a period of work. Using the latter, it is impossible to have information showing just when each piece of work was clone and to what extent they overlap. The studies used here are of the former type, being based on the recording of the operation together with the time of day so that the details of performance of the machine or crew may be followed from starting to quitting time by' referring to the graph upon which the study is taken.

Jan 1, 1928

By I. M. Charles

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: At the request of our Secretary, Mr. Shubart, I am pleased to present the following brief discussion of the Alamo Washery. In order to insure an excellent and uniform preparation of nut coal, the Alamo Coal Company erected last year a modern washery at a cost of about $50,000, in which, since the completion last December, all of the nut coal shipped from the Alamo Mine, has been washed. In part of the workings of the Alamo Mine, the coal is overlaid by a lenticular strata of slate, which invariably falls when the coal is shot down and breaks for the most part into fragments of such size as pass through three-inch round perforations, and are retained on plates having one and a fourth inch round holes with the nut coal. This "draw slate" comprises the principal impurity in the Alamo coal, and to remove it, some bone and a few small fragments of sandstone from the roof and floor, the washery was designed and erected. The few impurities contained in the lamp are readily re-

Jan 1, 1926

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

The 73rd 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, Robert W. Wilson, President and General Manager, K&P, Inc., Golden, Colorado, called the meeting to order. The membership was asked to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. As your immediate past president, it is my pleasure to have the responsibility of introducing our current President. But before I tell you about Ralph, I would like to make the following brief reflection, which I feel very strongly about: In these days of so much negativism toward our coal industry by so many people, we all must remember one thing as we go about producing energy for our country. Coal mining is just as American as the American hamburger, the American hot dog, and just as American as the flag to which we just pledged allegiance.

Jan 1, 1977

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Harold Levent., Manager Coal Activities, Cameron Engineers, Denver, Colorado. The first speaker was Dr. Joseph J. Yancik, Assistant Director-Mining, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington. D.C. Subject-"Coal Mining R&D Programs of the Bureau of Mines." (See index for printed text of Dr. Yancik's paper.) Joseph J. Yancik is Assistant Director - Mining for the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for the Bureau's research programs in mining. Principal programs are the coal and metal mining health and safety research, mining extraction and excavation, tunnelling, explosives, mined land reclamation, mine fires and mine waste disposal. He administers these programs through four research centers and through outside contracts and grants.

Jan 1, 1974

The 70th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Steamboat Village Inn, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The session was called to order by Past President O. F. Lewis. Consultant, Colowyo Coal Co., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Lewis introduced President A. F. Geiger, Manager, Navajo Mine, Utah International, Inc., Fruitland, New Mexico. Following are Mr. Lewis' remarks: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the institute, guests and friends, welcome to Steamboat Springs and the 70th meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From all appearances this is our largest meeting and should be the most successful. When I last spoke to you I was President of Colowyo Coal Company and the Rocky Mountain Coal Institute but that has changed. Colowyo Coal Company was acquired last Dec. by W. R. Grace & Co. and operates as Colowyo Coal Company, Division of W. R. Grace & Co. I am confident these people will make a worthwhile contribution to the coal Industry.

Jan 1, 1974

Our next speaker this afternoon is a good friend of mine of some years. I must introduce him by way of a little story. Now Harris Sherman, many of you know because he was really in charge of everything to do with the mining industry in the State of Colorado for a good many years. Some of you may know that before he became part of Governor, Lamm's first cabinet as Director of Department of Natural Resources, he was an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund and that caused me considerable panic as I think it might have caused some of you. I have observed Hams from the time he stepped into that office until he retired from that office to go into private practice as the senior partner of Arnold & Porter's Denver office, one of the , nation's most prestigious law firms. Hams is a Colorado native. He's lived here all of his life. He's a graduate of Columbia Law School for his law degree and a graduate of Colorado College down at the Springs for his BA. He has served in state government, but I thought it might be appropriate, since he is no longer in state government, if we used Harris, today, to tell us from a former state official's perspective what the image is of the coal industry from the seat he held in Governor Lamm's cabinet for a good many years. He has been the recipient of a number of honors that I think you should know about including Phi Beta Kappa and

Jan 1, 1982

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