Search Documents

Effect of Iron on ash fusion temperature and waterwall deposits FeS, H2S on tube material corrosion and erosion [ ]

Jan 1, 2005

By Scott Dupont

Due to the scarcity of miners, and the necessity of decreasing the cost of mining, the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Stag Canon Branch, at Dawson, [ ] New Mexico, decided to try, by various methods of mining, to increase the tonnage of coal mined per man, per day. With this in view, they first tried mining on a 250-foot face, maintaining the track at the face and using six to eight men shovel- [ ] ling. These men were able to aver age from ten to twelve tons each per, day when they were loading, but with

Jan 1, 1926

By D. Harrington

E. H. DENNY (United States Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado) In the absence of Mr. Harrington it is my privilege to read his paper, which is in his usual, forcible and sincere style, and it is within the province of this Institute, certainly, to go into it as it concerns safety and efficiency in mining. He brings out some points in his paper that, I think, are well worth the consideration of the Institute. The figures he uses were compiled by Mr. Adams, of the Bureau, and cover a five-year period. However, examination of similar Bureau figures for a ten-year period, or any other long period on other bases brings out similar results. The figures in this paper have been based on the million hours of exposure of accidents, and the figures based on three hundred working-man-day basis, or on tonnage, brings out similar results. This paper is entitled "Accident Record in Western Mines," and it is, in a way, an amplification of Mr. Harrington's letter which was read at the Glenwood Springs Meeting.

Jan 1, 1927

PRESIDENT MOSES.: The meeting will please come to order. Will you kindly state your names prior to making any statements, in order that we may deep the record straight? The first paper this morning is a joint one on vocational training, by D. W. Rockey, H. A. Tiemann and Wm. Moorhead. Mr. Rocdey. (Applause.) D. W. ROCKEY (State Superintendent, Industrial Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico) (Mr. Rocdey's notes not received in time for publication.) MR. TESCHER: I would like to ask you, Mr. Rocdey, you say you gave the Phelps-Dodge Corporation financial assistance; to just what extent was the State obligated, and how much assistance was given, etc.?

Jan 1, 1927

By Clyde Sitterud

Presentation Agenda ?Global Mining Tire Demand ?What is driving it? ?Latest Situation ?How long it will last? ?Michelin?s Response to Increase Supply ?New plant ?Additional presses ?Recommendations for Mining Users ?Treat tires as your major assets ?Areas of attention that will produce immediate results

Jan 1, 2005

National Energy Technology Laboratory ?Only DOE national lab dedicated to fossil energy -Fossil fuels provide 85% of U.S. energy supply ?One lab, five locations, one management structure ?1,200 Federal and support-contractor employees ?Research spans fundamental science to technology demonstrations

Jan 1, 2006

? Develop a six year capital budget for future emission controls at Western Springfield Power Plant that would provide long-term operating certainty

Jan 1, 2005

By James T. Bartis

Review of Key Issues Affecting the Prospects of CTL in the United States ?Issues of concern to the public - Impacts of coal mining - Water use - Greenhouse gas emissions ?Issues of concern to investors - CTL production costs - Oil prices - How greenhouse gas emissions will be managed ?RAND recommendations

Jan 1, 2009

By Wm. Monay

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

Jan 1, 1925

DM&E PRB Project [ ] DM&E HISTORICAL MILESTONES ?Start-up in 1986 (former C&NW). ?Colony Line acquisition in 1996 (from UP). ?PRB Project Announcement in 1997 ?IC&E Acquisition in 2002 (former CP/IMRL). ?FRA Federal Refinancing in 2003 (RRIF-1).

Jan 1, 2006

The 68th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in Manor Vail Lodge, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President Max A. Robb, Vice President and General Manager, U.S. Fuel Company, Hiawatha, Utah. Mr. Robb welcomed the members and guests and was pleased with the large attendance. He then introduced President Joseph E. Ward, former District Man- ager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. (Retired). A brief biography follows: Mr. Ward is a transplanted Westerner, having spent the greater part of his life in the Eastern and Southern areas of this country. In 1927, he graduated from what was then the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, Pa., with a B.S. degree in Mining Engineering. He dropped out of school for a period between his Junior and Senior years and worked in the coal mines in order to obtain sufficient money to complete his education. Practically all his adult life since graduation, has been spent in or around the coal mines in this country. After graduation, he worked the next 15 years of his life as an underground supervisor, first for the Hudson Coal Co., in Scranton, Pa. and later for the U.S. Steel Corporation in Birmingham, Alabama. He then went into sales, selling basically to the coal mine industry and other mining operations. The last 13 years of his business career were spent as a district manager for Joy Manufacturing CO., 10 years of which were in the Coal Division of their Denver office, covering the Rocky Mountain area. He retired in August 1970 but still retains an active interest in the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the Rocky Mountain Coal Industry it supports. He is a widower, his wife, Thelma having died in July 1970. He has two children and six grandchildren.

Jan 1, 1972

Lloyd W. Ingles, Superintendent, Allen mine, Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation. Stonewall, Colorado, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He introduced George C. Trevorrow, Safety Director, Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who spoke on "Recent Developments for Improving Safety in Underground Coal Mines." (Refer to the index for the printed text of this paper.) Following Mr. Trevorrow's paper, James Westfield, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., spoke briefly to the group or some of the new methods of controlling fire mentioned in Mr. Trevorrow's paper. Mr. Westfield stated that the Foam plug had been used in the Bureau's experimental mine, and was also used in New Mexico, but was not successful in putting out the lire. In a recent fire in Southwest Virginia where 18 men were lost, the foam plug was used after the fire had been burning for about 6 or 7 days. It did have a good effect, but the section had to be finally sealed off. In a fire in Pennsylvania about 2 weeks ago, the foam plug was put into action after about 9 hours. Although the section was finally sealed, managers of the mine credited the foam plug in saving the mine. Mr. Westfield stated that equipment must be at hand when fighting a fire; that time wasted in securing proper equipment may make the difference. Mr. Westfield also stated that as late as 2 months ago, it seemed that a methane monitoring device was as far as 4 or 5 years away. Now it is expected that it may be put in production within the year. Experimental models are in use in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Mr. Westfield concluded by complimenting Mr. Trevorrow on his excellent paper.

Jan 1, 1960

By Thomas Foster

One of the most dreaded things which mining men sometimes have to contend with is underground mine fires, which are both dangerous and expensive. In the Reliance mines we have had considerable trouble with mine fires. We have at the present time five different fire zones, three of these zones give us considerable trouble and the other two have not given any trouble since they have been walled off. Fire Zone No. 1 comprises No. 2, 3 and 4 South Entries, about 50 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 2 comprises the main drift entry from the mouth to the Old Boundary Plane and extends to the crop line, about 10 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 3 comprises 1 and 2 North Entries from the main slope to the Old Boundary Plane, a distance of about 1,200 feet, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 4 comprises 11/2 and 2 North Entries, a distance of 1,100 feet between New Slope and Old Boundary Plane, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 5 comprises the inside end of No. 11/2 and 2 North Entries and 3 North Entry from the New Slope to 30 room, a distance of about 2,600 feet along No. 3 North Entry, about 20 acres are enclosed in this zone. The first mine fire started in No. 2 South Entry in No. 1 zone in 1914. Inside of No. 7 room on the high side of the entry, there was a soft piece of coal. There were no rooms driven in this coal and one day a fire was discovered in the solid pillar on the high side of the entry, work was started at once to load out this fire. and several places was driven into the pillar and cribs built where the coal was taken out, but this method proved a failure and a sand pack was put up along the entry between the track and the high rib. This consisted of timber set about 3 feet from the rib and 2-inch boards put behind the timber and sand or adobe put in between the boards and the ribs, and this method gave very good results except that it required close watching as the sand would settle and let the smoke out between the roof and the sand. Fire broke out in No. 3 South Entry in No. 1 zone in the summer of 1919. We sealed this fire off by building 36 fire stoppings, which also enclosed the fire in No. 2 South Entry and we have never had any trouble with fires in this zone since it was walled off. The fire started in No. 2 -zone in 1919 and has been very active ever since. When this fire was first discovered we built new stoppings in front of the old one in the room necks; we also opened up some of the room necks and loaded out part of the burning coal and rock but this did not help any, the fire, would burn out around the stoppings also burn along the roof between the top coal and the roof sometimes nearly across the entry. Several holes were drilled from the surface to the fire area and flushing the fire was tried but this was also a:\, failure, the rock above the coal was so hot that the mud would dry in the hole and fill it. In 1921 we started to take down the top coal along this entry, timber the entry and put 2-inch boards behind the timber and fill in between the coal and the boards with sand or adobe. We have at present over 1,000 feet of this work done and it has given us better results than any other method that we have tried. As the coal burns out behind the timber the weight breaks the timber and it is necessary to renew some of it. Fire broke out in No. 1 North Entry in No. 3 zone in 1922. There was a stopping in this entry that had been put in when the entry was finished some few years before. The fire burned around the stopping on the low rib of the entry, we built another stopping in front of the old one taking down the top coal and extending it up to the roof also digging in both ribs and setting the stoppings into the coal about 18 inches. This fire did not cause any trouble until June, 1924, when we discovered this fire was very active on the inside

Jan 1, 1924

The 76th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 9:30 a.m. A film-"Once Upon a Time" showing the stifling effect of unnecessary government regulations and the importance of protecting economic political freedoms was shown. Past President, Robert E. Murray, President, Western Division and Subsidiary Companies, The North American Coal Corporation, called the meeting to order. He introduced President Loren V. Linville, District Sales Manager, Industrial Products Division, Uniroyal, Inc. A biographical sketch follows: Loren V. Linville was born on December 29, 1925 on the family farm near Wiley, Colorado to Scott W. and Hazel Linville. He has one sister, a teacher in the public schools and a brother who is an optometrist in Gustine, California. Loren grew up in Lamar, Colo. graduating from Lamar High School in 1944 and spent the folllowing 2 years as a radioman in the US Navy. He graduated from Denver University in 1950 with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. On September 12, 1948 he married Norma. They have 3 children, Linelle, a teacher in New Mexico, Bruce an electronic technician in Colorado Springs and Kevin at home.

Jan 1, 1980

By James J. Bryja

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

Jan 1, 2008

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 B. W. Dyer

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

Jan 1, 1925

The Tuesday Morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. E. C. DeMoss, Vice President, Utah Construction & Mining Company, San Francisco, California. Mr. DeMoss introduced Mr. C. Howard Hardesty, Jr., Senior Vice President, Con¬tinental Oil Company, New York, N. Y. Mr. Hardesty spoke on the "Relationship of Coal to Progress in Oil Industry." Mr. Hardesty was born in Fairmont, West Virginia, 1922. He is an attorney by profession; he attended Mercerburg Academy in 1939 and received a Bachelor of Science degree from Duke University, 1943. He then served three years in the U. S. Navy and returned in 1946 to obtain his LL.B. from West Virginia University in 1949. Mr. Hardesty has had an outstanding professional career which started as a partner of the law firm of Furbee & Hardesty, Fairmont, West Virginia. He subsequently was West Virginia's State Tax Commissioner and President of the West Virginia Bar Association. In 1963 lie became General Counsel of Consolidation Coal Co., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; in 1964 he was made Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Consolidation Coal. In 1966 he was elected Executive Vice President of Consol, and, shortly after it was merged with Continental Oil Co., he was made Senior Vice President of Continental. He is married to the former Doris Wilson; they have two children and reside in Greenwich, Connecticut.

Jan 1, 1968

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

The final session of the meeting was preceded by a movie, "Contact That Kills," which was a color film clearly pointing out various causes of electrical accidents in mines and how such accidents could he prevented. This film was made underground and produced by the U. S. Bureau of Mines for use in teaching accident classes. President R. R. Williams, Jr., called the meeting to order and introduced Mr. Leif Arentzen of the Lee-Norse Company, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, who spoke on "Coal Mining in Australia." The text of his address is as follows: "I arrived in Australia in February of this year-my father sent me over there for an installation. He preceded me as he does in most things, and set up a showing of our machine in Australia. We had 200 of the top level coal mining men visit this showing. They were interested in what the Americans are doing and what the American manufacturer had to offer them. Conditions in Australia are very similar to our mining conditions in the United States and they have looked to us, the coal industry in general, because we have the know-how in answering some of their problems. They feel that European methods and their type of machines are too inadequate to cope with their conditions. My visit was to South Wales, 60 miles south of Sidney. Their mining operation resembled mining coal in Florida. The work is on about a 500-ft. elevation about three miles from the ocean and when you turn around and see about 30 miles of beach, it is quite a picture - the Pacific Ocean is so blue. The coal seam is about ten feet of relatively clean coal. Labor relations are very, very taught right now. They are agitated by a strong Communistic influence and their weekly publication is known as the ?Common Cause,? which is against mechanization of coal mines." Mr. Arentzen enlarged on the fact that America was the example they held before them and described the Australian coal men and their character.

Jan 1, 1959