Search Documents

By Samuel M. Cassidy, John A. Garcia

In some districts of the bituminous coal field the problem of constructing bulkheads to seal off water under pressure is becoming increasingly important. Recently this matter has been brought very much to the front by the loss of a large Illinois mine due to failure of a bulkhead that separated it from several old, flooded mines. As this great misfortune has provoked much inquiry about proper bulkhead design, it is felt that a description of the successful and extensive water-sealing practice at three mines that have different natural conditions will be of considerable interest to those connected with properties having a present or future water problem and to engineers that may have to design safe bulkheads of economical construction. These three mines are the Saxton and Dresser, near Terre Haute, Ind., and the Hegeler, near Danville, Ill. All three have water conditions that make it necessary to regularly seal off all worked-out sections of the mine, and there are considerably over a hundred bulkheads in each. AS far as the writers know, these three mines are the only ones in the bituminous coal fields of the United States with anything like so large a number of water seals and experience, although a number of other mines are known to have a few bulkheads. More detail will be included herein on the Saxton mine than on the others, as the writers are more familiar with it. General Mining System All three of the mines use the same general panel room-and-pillar system, which consists of rooms turned both ways off room entries and a solid block of coal left on all sides of the completed panel except on the cross-entry side, where a heavier pillar is pierced by two entries for haulage and air. On completion of the panel the two entries arc sealed and the panel is then isolated from the rest of the mine. Owing to water conditions, no pillars are pulled; recovery inside the panel barrier pillars is approximately 65 per cent.

Jan 1, 1938

By Phillip B. Bucky, R. S. Taborelli

The term "longwall mining" is best known to coal men, although modifications of the method are continually being used in other fields. Longwall mining is of interest today because it makes for greater inechanization and better supervision at the working face, and therefore lower production costs and increased safety. It is an approach to the factory system of production, the high efficiency of which as compared to that in mines is well known. There is available an accumulation of experience regarding this work but coordination of experience is lacking and this series of experiments was undertaken to help serve this purpose. Model experiments were used for reasons of safety, cost and time, and because it has been previously shown1,2,3 that a scalar inodel built of the same material as the prototype will behave in a manner similar to that of the prototype, with time effects the same, if the effective weight of the model is increased in the same proportion as its linear dimenbions are decreased. This is accomplished by substituting a centrifugal for the gravitational field; i.e., placing the model in a centrifuge and controlling the strength of the centrifugal field by varying the rate of rotation. Many factors affect the behavior of the geologic material overlying a bed, therefore results and conclusions contained in this paper apply only to the conditions presented herein. Longwall Mining What Is Longwall Mining?—Agreement should be reached as to what constitutes longwall mining and therefore what constitutes a longwall face. Let longwall mining be defined as the mining procedure in which the roof and overlying bed breaks tend to parallel the working face. In the ordinary stope or room-and-pillar mining the roof breaks tend to

Jan 1, 1938

By Phillip B. Bucky, R. S. Taborelli

The term "longwall mining" is best known to coal men, although modifications of the method are continually being used in other fields. Longwall mining is of interest today because it makes for greater inechanization and better supervision at the working face, and therefore lower production costs and increased safety. It is an approach to the factory system of production, the high efficiency of which as compared to that in mines is well known. There is available an accumulation of experience regarding this work but coordination of experience is lacking and this series of experiments was undertaken to help serve this purpose. Model experiments were used for reasons of safety, cost and time, and because it has been previously shown1,2,3 that a scalar inodel built of the same material as the prototype will behave in a manner similar to that of the prototype, with time effects the same, if the effective weight of the model is increased in the same proportion as its linear dimenbions are decreased. This is accomplished by substituting a centrifugal for the gravitational field; i.e., placing the model in a centrifuge and controlling the strength of the centrifugal field by varying the rate of rotation. Many factors affect the behavior of the geologic material overlying a bed, therefore results and conclusions contained in this paper apply only to the conditions presented herein. Longwall Mining What Is Longwall Mining?—Agreement should be reached as to what constitutes longwall mining and therefore what constitutes a longwall face. Let longwall mining be defined as the mining procedure in which the roof and overlying bed breaks tend to parallel the working face. In the ordinary stope or room-and-pillar mining the roof breaks tend to

Jan 1, 1938

By L. E. Young

The purpose of this paper is to start a discussion on: (I) methods of supporting the immediate roof, particularly of local areas of poor roof, during the mechanical loading of coal; (2) methods of increasing the rapidity of the movement of the mining faces so that, without the use of cribs, jacks, park walls, and filling, there will be no danger to men, equipment, and working places from the subsidence of the overlying strata. In the Pittsburgh district the application of mechanical loading devices in mines working in the Pittsburgh seam has been retarded by the difficulties of holding and handling the draw slate. Normally the thickness of this slate averages about 8 in. but the hardness varies, and a cut of coal cannot always be loaded without placing posts or crossbars to support the slate. Locally, the slate may be thicker and special methods of support may be required. If crossbars are placed to hold the slate when the coal averages 5 ft. in thickness, the standard methods of transporting the coal cannot be followed, and the use of conveyors may be desirable. Very little information is available on the effect of increasing the rate of movement of advancing or retreating break lines or longwall faces. A few British publications have presented some data but all such data relate to longwall faces that have moved not more than 6 ft. a day. The most rapid rate of movemerit of longwall faces in Germany is 6 ft. per day. In the ordinary hand-loading mine in western Pennsylvania break lines on full retreat will move about 2 ft. per day. If loading machines are used under similar conditions the rate of retreat may reach 4 ft. per day. In a mine where coal is loaded by hand on conveyors three shifts per day, the rate of retreat has ranged from 11 to 16 ft. per day, with an average of 13 ft. If mobile loading machines could be used to load on conveyors on break lines, the rate of retreat should be increased substantially During 1935 and 1936, the United States Bureau of Mines, under a cooperative agreement with the Pittsburgh Coal Co., carried on studies of roof movement at Montour To. 10 mine. The work war done urider the direction of Mr. H. P. Greenwald, Supervising En neer, Experi-

Jan 1, 1938

By L. E. Young

The purpose of this paper is to start a discussion on: (I) methods of supporting the immediate roof, particularly of local areas of poor roof, during the mechanical loading of coal; (2) methods of increasing the rapidity of the movement of the mining faces so that, without the use of cribs, jacks, park walls, and filling, there will be no danger to men, equipment, and working places from the subsidence of the overlying strata. In the Pittsburgh district the application of mechanical loading devices in mines working in the Pittsburgh seam has been retarded by the difficulties of holding and handling the draw slate. Normally the thickness of this slate averages about 8 in. but the hardness varies, and a cut of coal cannot always be loaded without placing posts or crossbars to support the slate. Locally, the slate may be thicker and special methods of support may be required. If crossbars are placed to hold the slate when the coal averages 5 ft. in thickness, the standard methods of transporting the coal cannot be followed, and the use of conveyors may be desirable. Very little information is available on the effect of increasing the rate of movement of advancing or retreating break lines or longwall faces. A few British publications have presented some data but all such data relate to longwall faces that have moved not more than 6 ft. a day. The most rapid rate of movemerit of longwall faces in Germany is 6 ft. per day. In the ordinary hand-loading mine in western Pennsylvania break lines on full retreat will move about 2 ft. per day. If loading machines are used under similar conditions the rate of retreat may reach 4 ft. per day. In a mine where coal is loaded by hand on conveyors three shifts per day, the rate of retreat has ranged from 11 to 16 ft. per day, with an average of 13 ft. If mobile loading machines could be used to load on conveyors on break lines, the rate of retreat should be increased substantially During 1935 and 1936, the United States Bureau of Mines, under a cooperative agreement with the Pittsburgh Coal Co., carried on studies of roof movement at Montour To. 10 mine. The work war done urider the direction of Mr. H. P. Greenwald, Supervising En neer, Experi-

Jan 1, 1938

By George Watkin Evans

The need for mechanization in coal mining wherever it can be successfully introduced is evident when we take into account the fact that during recent years the coal-mine employee's wages have increased and his hours have been shortened. Coal is no longer King, and a brief study of statistics covering the production of coal, petroleum and natural gas and the development of water power will convince anyone that coal has had very powerful competitors during the past 10 years. Petroleum production in the United States between 1918 and 1936 increased from 100 per cent to 309 per cent. Water power increased from 100 per cent in 1918 to 270 per cent in 1936. Bituminous coal slipped from 100 per cent in 1918 to 75 per cent in 1936. The anthracite industry slipped from 100 per cent in 1918 to 50 per cent in 1932, but climbed to 55 per cent in 1936. In 1918, the State of Washington produced a little over four million tons of coal and the production of California oil, at that time, was a little less than one hundred million barrels per year. By 1929 the production of California oil had increased to a little over 292,000,000 bbl. or nearly 300 per cent as compared with 1918. By 1934 the production of coal in the state of Washington had dropped to about 1 1/3 millions of tons per year. Our neighbors in British Columbia had their coal production reduced from a little over 2 1/2 million tons in 1920 to less than 1 1/3 million in 1933. The North western Improvement Co., a subsidiary of the Northern Pacific Railroad Co., owns coal properties in various parts of Washington and Montana. The Northern Pacific is one of the very few railroads using any considerable quantity of coal in its operations. Practically all of the American railroads in the Pacific Northwest, except the Northern Pacific, are using cheap California fuel oil or electricity. This problem, of course, is not a new one in coal mining, and all of the progressive coal companies in the country have tried to meet competition from an overproduction of petroleum and an overproduction of natural gas as well as enlarged developments of hydroelectric plants.

Jan 1, 1938

By George Watkin Evans

The need for mechanization in coal mining wherever it can be successfully introduced is evident when we take into account the fact that during recent years the coal-mine employee's wages have increased and his hours have been shortened. Coal is no longer King, and a brief study of statistics covering the production of coal, petroleum and natural gas and the development of water power will convince anyone that coal has had very powerful competitors during the past 10 years. Petroleum production in the United States between 1918 and 1936 increased from 100 per cent to 309 per cent. Water power increased from 100 per cent in 1918 to 270 per cent in 1936. Bituminous coal slipped from 100 per cent in 1918 to 75 per cent in 1936. The anthracite industry slipped from 100 per cent in 1918 to 50 per cent in 1932, but climbed to 55 per cent in 1936. In 1918, the State of Washington produced a little over four million tons of coal and the production of California oil, at that time, was a little less than one hundred million barrels per year. By 1929 the production of California oil had increased to a little over 292,000,000 bbl. or nearly 300 per cent as compared with 1918. By 1934 the production of coal in the state of Washington had dropped to about 1 1/3 millions of tons per year. Our neighbors in British Columbia had their coal production reduced from a little over 2 1/2 million tons in 1920 to less than 1 1/3 million in 1933. The North western Improvement Co., a subsidiary of the Northern Pacific Railroad Co., owns coal properties in various parts of Washington and Montana. The Northern Pacific is one of the very few railroads using any considerable quantity of coal in its operations. Practically all of the American railroads in the Pacific Northwest, except the Northern Pacific, are using cheap California fuel oil or electricity. This problem, of course, is not a new one in coal mining, and all of the progressive coal companies in the country have tried to meet competition from an overproduction of petroleum and an overproduction of natural gas as well as enlarged developments of hydroelectric plants.

Jan 1, 1938

By Charles T. Holland

Miners have observed for many years that as pillars are removed in mining operations the pillar adjacent to those mined out frequently shows evidence of being compressed. Although this has been known for a long time, little or no information is available concerning how far from the mining area the pillars are affected in this manner, or how great is the magnitude of the compression, or concerning the manner or characteristic way in which the compression acts, as the mined-out area approaches the pillar under consideration. The writer made a study of pillar action in the Mona mine of the Arkwright Coal Co., partly to get some quantitative data on the deformation of coal-mine pillars. The study was not completed but it seems best to present the information that was obtained. Method of Measurement Fig. 1 shows the details of the apparatus used for measuring the deformation. This is permanently attached to the pillar. Fig. 2 shows the details of the gauge that records the deformation. This gauge is removable and was used to measure the deformation at all the stations. The recording dial is graduated in thousandths of an inch and records measurements up to one inch. Fig. 3 shows how the removable gauge is placed in the instrument. When installing the instrument in the side of the pillar, all loose coal near by was removed and a trench 4 to 6 in. deep, and approximately 1 ft. wide, was dug in the pillar. In this trench near the top and the floor, the holes holding the instrument were bored. These holes were then partly filled with thin cement and the rods were inserted. The remaining space in the holes was tamped full of cement. At this time, by carefully manipulating the permanent rods and clamps and adjustable pin, it was possible to adjust the instrument so that the removable gauge would stand true and measure any vertical deformation between the top and bottom rods. Fig. 4 is a photograph of one of the instruments installed, showing the removable gauge in place.

Jan 1, 1938

By Charles T. Holland

Miners have observed for many years that as pillars are removed in mining operations the pillar adjacent to those mined out frequently shows evidence of being compressed. Although this has been known for a long time, little or no information is available concerning how far from the mining area the pillars are affected in this manner, or how great is the magnitude of the compression, or concerning the manner or characteristic way in which the compression acts, as the mined-out area approaches the pillar under consideration. The writer made a study of pillar action in the Mona mine of the Arkwright Coal Co., partly to get some quantitative data on the deformation of coal-mine pillars. The study was not completed but it seems best to present the information that was obtained. Method of Measurement Fig. 1 shows the details of the apparatus used for measuring the deformation. This is permanently attached to the pillar. Fig. 2 shows the details of the gauge that records the deformation. This gauge is removable and was used to measure the deformation at all the stations. The recording dial is graduated in thousandths of an inch and records measurements up to one inch. Fig. 3 shows how the removable gauge is placed in the instrument. When installing the instrument in the side of the pillar, all loose coal near by was removed and a trench 4 to 6 in. deep, and approximately 1 ft. wide, was dug in the pillar. In this trench near the top and the floor, the holes holding the instrument were bored. These holes were then partly filled with thin cement and the rods were inserted. The remaining space in the holes was tamped full of cement. At this time, by carefully manipulating the permanent rods and clamps and adjustable pin, it was possible to adjust the instrument so that the removable gauge would stand true and measure any vertical deformation between the top and bottom rods. Fig. 4 is a photograph of one of the instruments installed, showing the removable gauge in place.

Jan 1, 1938

By H. Landsberg

In a previous report1 it was pointed out that a successful attack on roof troubles has to be preceded by extensive scouting. As Lord Kelvin once said, scientific progress can be made only if accurate data are available: "unless you measure, you do not know." The Convergence Recorder For the observation of roof movements in mines the convergence recorder has shown that it will enable us to get some of the necessary information. Results with convergence recorders were first published by Winstanley and other English investigators for rapidly moving longwall faces. In their investigations the speed of work and the heavy overburden produced a considerable amount of absolute values of convergence in a short time. Under the conditions frequently encountered in our investigations in Central Pennsylvania, under shallow, overburden and in mines with slowly proceeding extraction, the movements observed were much less in absolute value, for an equal interval of time. This mas partly because the mines in which our studies were carried on frequently had idle days, sometimes four or five in succession. Therefore continuous records were not employed and a simple convergence gauge was built. In its first models, it consisted only of two telescoping tubes pressed against roof and floor by a coil spring. At the side of the lower tube a rule divided into 1/2-mm. divisions mas fixed and a knife-edge, which was attached to the upper tube, mas slid over the scale in case of convergence between roof and floor. While the larger motions could be read on this device, it seemed to be desirable to increase the accuracy by inserting between the two tubes a dial meter reading in 1/1000 in. Such a gauge was first built in April 1937 and installed for experimental purposes in a bituminous coal mine in Pennsylvania (Fig. I). It was read at least once daily, 24 hr. apart, and if feasible at shorter intervals. After several months of experience it can be said that this type of gauge answers the scientific as well as the practical needs. It is easier to handle than the recorder; no clock is used, there are no pen troubles. The price of

Jan 1, 1938

By H. Landsberg

In a previous report1 it was pointed out that a successful attack on roof troubles has to be preceded by extensive scouting. As Lord Kelvin once said, scientific progress can be made only if accurate data are available: "unless you measure, you do not know." The Convergence Recorder For the observation of roof movements in mines the convergence recorder has shown that it will enable us to get some of the necessary information. Results with convergence recorders were first published by Winstanley and other English investigators for rapidly moving longwall faces. In their investigations the speed of work and the heavy overburden produced a considerable amount of absolute values of convergence in a short time. Under the conditions frequently encountered in our investigations in Central Pennsylvania, under shallow, overburden and in mines with slowly proceeding extraction, the movements observed were much less in absolute value, for an equal interval of time. This mas partly because the mines in which our studies were carried on frequently had idle days, sometimes four or five in succession. Therefore continuous records were not employed and a simple convergence gauge was built. In its first models, it consisted only of two telescoping tubes pressed against roof and floor by a coil spring. At the side of the lower tube a rule divided into 1/2-mm. divisions mas fixed and a knife-edge, which was attached to the upper tube, mas slid over the scale in case of convergence between roof and floor. While the larger motions could be read on this device, it seemed to be desirable to increase the accuracy by inserting between the two tubes a dial meter reading in 1/1000 in. Such a gauge was first built in April 1937 and installed for experimental purposes in a bituminous coal mine in Pennsylvania (Fig. I). It was read at least once daily, 24 hr. apart, and if feasible at shorter intervals. After several months of experience it can be said that this type of gauge answers the scientific as well as the practical needs. It is easier to handle than the recorder; no clock is used, there are no pen troubles. The price of

Jan 1, 1938

By E. L. Estabrook, H. H. Hill

This report summarizes the information that was obtained by the Committee on Unit Operation in Eastern United States and in the foreign countries. Letters and questionnaires were sent to all of the Eastern members of the Petroleum Division of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers and to those who are living outside of the United States, asking them to advise the Committee of any unit operations that are in effect in the various countries of the world and to furnish the names of men to whom inquiries should be directed for detailed information on the different projects. The response to the Committee's request is worthy of note. Practically all of the members who had knowledge of foreign operations replied to the questionnaire and not only furnished information that was of value to the Committee, but they evidenced a real interest in the subject of unit operations and assured the Committee of their willingness to assist in every way possible in order to make the study a success. The Committee wishes, at this time, to express its appreciation of the excellent cooperation that was received from the members of the A. I. M. E. to whom questionnaires were sent. Unfortunately, the limited time that has been given to this survey did not permit the collection of detailed data on the different unit operations that are now in effect. It required several weeks to get back replies from the members located in some of the foreign countries and as a result the men who were asked to furnish information on the various projects have not had sufficient time to submit the detailed data that were requested. The Committee has been assured, however, that information relating to a number of unit operations will be furnished in the near future. Part of the delay has been due to the fact that the purpose of the study was not understood and because the terms "unit" and "near-unit" operations were not clearly defined. In the foreign countries, practically all of the operations in noncompetitive fields are on concessions or leases that have been granted to a single company and for that reason

Jan 1, 1930

Apart from the general cooperation received in many quarters, the Unitization Committee desires to make specific acknowledgment to the following individuals for assistance rendered in the study to this time. California.—Committee members: Joseph Jensen, chairman, L. L. Brundred, E. M. Butterworth, H. Norton Johnson, D. B. Myers, W. R. Wardner; others who contributed: C. R. McCollom, F. C. Merritt, E. B. Noble, Ralph Arnold, J. R. Pemberton, Roy R. Morse, T. F. Stipp, John R. Roberts, R. D. Bush, Alexander Anderson, J. A. Taff, F. 0. Martin, J. E. Van Gundy, E. K. Parks, A. C. Rubel, Lew Suverkrop, W. L. McLaine, Gerard Henny, Walter Stalder, Lester C. Uren, Hoyt S. Gale, W. L. Walker. Rocky Mountain.—Fred E. Wood, chairman, J. G. Bartram, C. E. Dobbin, Wilson B. Emery, Charles E. Erdman, R. D. Hawley, E. W. Krampert, Foster Morrell, W. T. Nightingale, K. B. Nowels, C. M. Rath, Earl Shoenfelt, J. W. Steele, E. T. Wilson, J. J. Zorichak. Kansas-Oklahoma.—Committee members: C. E. Beecher, chairman, A. W. Ambrose, R. C. Hauber, Clyde Alexander, R. F. MacArthur, C. R. Swarts, M. M. Valerius, E. H. Griswold, G. 6. Rollin, L. Murray Newman, David L. Trax, Richard K. Huey, Marvin Lee, Harry Johnson; others who contributed: E. A. Carr, Paul S. Ache, K. C. Slater, R. S. McFarland, J. R. McWilliams, Joseph Chalmers, Henry A. Ley, Dorsey IIager, H. C. George, W. K. Whiteford, L. G. E. Bignell, L. E. Smith, George E. Burton. Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico.—Frederic H. Lahee, chairman, Donald C. Barton, C:. E. Beecher, Olin G. Bell, G. E. Campbell, Paul Wagner, John West, Robin Willis, J. M. Forgotson, E. J. Gorman, P. S. Haury, Marvin Lee, C. F. Lytle, L. H. McBee, T. F. Petty, C. C. Pope, F. S. Prout, J. C. Stewart, J. R. Suman, L. P. Teas, W. C. Thompson, A. F. Truex, R. B. Campbell, M. G. Cheney, P. C. Dean, F. W. DeWolf, Dugald Gordon, B. A. Hardey, F. E. Heath, J. F. Lucey, George C. Matson, W. H. Perot, T. W. Pew, W. A. Price, W. A. -Reiter, R. C. Stewart. Eastern United States and Foreign Fields.—H. H. Hill and E. L. Estabrook, chairmen; Dr. Richard Ambronn, Gottingen, Germany; Arthur R. Andrew,

Jan 1, 1930

Unitization—in some form from simple agreements among operators to complete consolidation of ownerships—is a means of obviating the wastes of unrestrained competition among owners in extracting oil and gas from a common reservoir, as well as of adjusting its output to the current needs of its owners. It offers opportunity for application of improved production methods which are expected to increase recovery, decrease developing and operating costs, and assist in stabilizing output.

Jan 1, 1930

G. O. SMITH,* Washington, D. C.—This program is itself a demonstration of the widespread interest in the subject of more efficient development and operation of oil fields. The statements of fact already presented and the views expressed are sufficient evidence that the engineering and economic principles fundamental to the idea of unit operation are much more generally accepted than they were even one year ago. And real progress has been made in putting these principles to the test. No one realizes better than I that the fight against waste, whether physical or economic, must be waged in the front-line trenches: Washington at best is only an observation post. Yet viewed from this distance the advance made in the last few months has been notable and to a high degree encouraging. Five years ago the Federal Oil Conservation Board, in its first contacts with the industry, raised the question, "How can new pools be explored without exploitation until new production is warranted by the country's needs?" Three and one-half years ago the Board, in its first report to the President, paid largest attention, among what it listed as fundamental conservation measures, to "cooperative methods in sane development of new fields." A year ago, in its third report, the Board again endorsed as the essential factor in conserving the nation's reserves of oil, "full cooperation in unit control, whether by voluntary agreement or by state enforcement." The function of this federal agency has been purely fact-finding and educational. The Oil Conservation Board early declared that the major part of its task was to help the industry "formulate the broader by-laws in the sense of conservation." And now, after these five years of eventful history in the oil industry, may I size up the situation as I see it from the Washington point of view? First of all, and fundamental to a successful issue, I have observed in the industry a gradual acceptance of technical opinion as the guide to executive action; and this has at last led to some agreement as to what procedure offers most promise. Analyzed in more detail, this highly desirable progress has consisted in "self-restraint actuated by enlightened self-interest." We see emerging the general desire of oil producers for efficiency in operation, which means low costs and high recovery. As shown by facts presented at this meeting, competition in drilling is in direct opposition to efficiency in oil production, in that such competition increases costs and lowers recovery. The only route to conservation of this natural resource and also of the capital and labor involved in making it available is through unit control, which substitutes cooperative, well-planned action for competitive, unregulated activity, forced by the individualism of a small minority of landowners or perhaps by a single operator. Or, in terms of actual experience, development of an oil field and its subsequent operation under unit control means the substitution of majority rule for minority rule, yet the minority enjoys to the full the resulting economic benefits. So far as it affects the public interest, unit operation of oil properties deserves unqualified approval. It means more oil from the same area over a longer period

Jan 1, 1930

Unitization—in some form from simple agreements among operators to complete consolidation of ownerships—is a means of obviating the wastes of unrestrained competition among owners in extracting oil and gas from a common reservoir, as well as of adjusting its output to the current needs of its owners. It offers opportunity for application of improved production methods which are expected to increase recovery, decrease developing and operating costs, and assist in stabilizing output.

Jan 1, 1930

By Earl Oliver, J. B. Umpleby

It is believed that in connection with the study of unit operation by the Petroleum Division of the A. I. M. E. a review of the simple principles of unit operation would be helpful. To that end, the following discussion is submitted. It is not to be considered in any sense as the conclusion of the committee, but rather as material submitted for its consideration and represents at this time only the viewpoints of its authors. Growth of the Oil Industry In 70 years the oil industry has grown from a single well on Oil Creek, Venango County, Pennsylvania, producing 25 bbl, per day, to more than 400,000 wells scattered over five continents with a daily output of 4,000,000 bbl. In that time petroleum has expanded from its simple use as a medicine in a few localities to a multitude of diverse uses in homes of every country the world over. During those years the oil fields of the United States have produced two-thirds of the world's output and have shipped their excess production into almost every country. In those years several hundred thousand good wells in the United States declined into small ones and depleted shallow deposits gave way to deep zones; so that the United States crude oil industry gradually changed from one of low cost production to one of higher cost. Throughout its entire life it has labored under two serious economic disadvantages, namely, constantly recurring periods of demoralization through overproduction, and competitive development methods that are wasteful. Development of Foreign Competition During the transition from low to higher cost production in the United States, events even more significant were taking place in foreign lands. Jungles were tamed and deserts conquered. Oil deposits were found and developed until, in the words of Sir John Cadman, "the globe is now drenched with a commodity which, although necessary to life, involves but an irregular and sometimes meager expenditure of life in its

Jan 1, 1930

This is a brief account of the history of unit operation in the Salt Creek field, Wyoming, from the time of the agreement to prorate production in March, 1921, to the present. An attempt has been made to evaluate the savings in development and production costs resulting from the unit plans adopted. Summarized, these savings have amounted to $11,650,000. No effort has been made to estimate any increase in ultimate recovery, for it is believed that unit operation can be justified on saving in development and production costs alone. It would require nearly 20,000,000 barrels of additional oil to be produced in order to return the amount saved by not drilling unnecessary wells. Four horizons are affected by unit or near-unit programs, as follows: The principal operator is under contract with six companies to operate 10,400 acres. This includes all of the productive area of the First Wall

Jan 1, 1930

By Sam Harlan

At intervals during the past several years the oil industry has been confronted with the problem of forestalling crises in its affairs. These crises have been reduced to periods of depression which, fortunately, the industry has been able to survive. Under the existing competitive practices which control the producing division of the industry it apparently has been proved that the best efforts logically to curtail development and producing operations are inadequate for effecting a true production balance and the consequent stabilization of prices. The industry is awakening to the fact that the situation warrants revolutionary thought and at this time it is looking for a permanent solution of its problem in a general plan for unit development and operation such as the one first proposed by Henry L. Doherty. Mr. Doherty's proposal was designed not only as a means for stabilizing the industry as a whole, but its principles involve very definite potential benefits for the average individual operator and royalty owner as participants in pooled projects. The benefits to these individuals would be derived from maximum recovery, the maximum utilization of natural energies, the minimization of development and operating costs, enhanced values of leases and royalties through improved efficiencies and ultimate yields, improved earnings through stabilized crude oil prices, etc. This plan was revolutionary to the industry's practices and at the time was rejected, but it now appears that the development and operating policies for new properties are continually approaching the ideal of the original plan. Oil companies are constantly extending their efforts to improve all factors that have a bearing on the costs and efficiencies of their operations. These efforts may, in some degree, be a normal outgrowth of the industry's progress, but the forced consideration of market conditions, the growing appreciation of the importance of regulating operations for maximum ultimate economies and the depreciation of the old principle of maximum flush at any cost, come from a new school of thought which has been stimulated by the immediate pressure of overproduction and

Jan 1, 1930

By F. E. Wood

Since the earliest discoveries of oil in the Rocky Mountain area the spirit of cooperation in drilling and production programs has prevailed. There has scarcely been a field which has not been developed in an orderly manner through mutual agreement between competitive operators. An appreciable saving has resulted, as many unnecessary wells have been eliminated. We have unit operation plans and agreements which were developed at an early date. Rock River, found in 1918, has been a unit operation. One of the first prorate agreements ever attempted was made in Salt Creek in 1921. Teapot, first developed in 1922, has been a unit operation; the lessee, the Government, and the lessor, one operator. South Casper Creek, found in 1918, has been developed as a unit. Rex Lake, found in 1923, is a unit operation. The list might be extended materially but it serves to indicate that the Rocky Mountain region enjoyed the fruits of unit operation at an early date. It is concluded from this unitization study in the Rocky Mountain region that there is an appreciable saving in both development and production costs as well as the elimination of waste of a natural resource. Certainly, when unit operation conserves an irreplaceable natural resource as well as capital, any legal or political impediment to its successful development will be overcome. If one company supervises the operations in one field, it appears to be a unit operation. This may not be true if the lands involved have been leased from a great number of lessors. Royalty holders create a most intense competitive operation. The Rocky Mountain region has its full quota of such diversified interests. The original study calls for consideration of two types of fields, unit and near-unit operation. This Committee has felt that if an agreement of any character has brought about a saving it is an approach to unit operation. The fields have been classified into four types: 1. Unit Operation.—Any field whereby the competitive drilling-drainage feature is or will be absent in the development and operation of the pool.

Jan 1, 1930