Search Documents

By W. G. Kegel

Coal mining today is confronted with numerous problems, all of which affect in some way the ability of the operator to produce profitably. The major endeavor, therefore, is a quest for cost lowering techniques. Complete belt haulage from shuttle car to river barge appeared to be a step in such a direction. A deep look into all aspects proved this to be more involved than just the installation of such a belt line. With this paper, we will attempt to present to you the problems and requirements of design and installation of an all-belt haulage system, believed to be the longest underground belt installation in the world at this time. The first and most important item is the justification of an all-belt haulage system. The following is a brief history of the coal property and the facts affecting our decision.

Jan 1, 1964

By Jack F. B. Silman

Proving up any large, open pit ore deposit by normal exploration drilling under the best of conditions is a noteworthy accomplishment. But, when adverse conditions preclude standard drilling methods, and the same end result is achieved by a relatively new and little known type of drilling, special comment is in order. Three major problems confronted exploration drilling at the Questa molybdenite mine of the Molybdenum Corporation of America-sampling, terrain and time. Surface and underground longhole drilling provided the needed solutions, thus making the greatest single contribution to an exploration and development program that was successful in proving a major, open pit molybdenum deposit.

Jan 5, 1965

Longhole open stoping was introduced in the zinc-rich 'B' lode at New Broken Hill Consolidated Limited (NBHC) during 1968. Since then one longitud- inal and a series of transverse longhole open stopes have been developed. The longholes are drilled using Gardner Denver airtrac drilling jumbos and the broken ore is loaded from drawpoints and transported to chutes using Wagner ST5 scoop- trams. The holes were drilled from sill stopes 160 ft apart. The width of an emptied transverse longhole stope was successfully widened by blasting rings of blastholes drilled parallel to the stope wall. Proposed stope and pillar designs for a series of transverse longhole open stopes were assessed using a method of finite element analysis, applied to a longitudinal section through the area. Blastholes have been surveyed for dip and bearing using an Eastman borehole survey camera. The data produced has provided the basis of a study of blast- hole deviation. Deviation of boreholes is considered to be the major cause of the formation of benches in longhole stopes.

Jan 1, 1971

By S. Dereski, G. Chancellor

"INTRODUCTION Barrick Goldstrike underground mine is located in Northern Nevada on the Carlin trend. The underground mine produces approximately 1.5 to 1.8 million tons a year and approximately 400,000 ounces of gold a year. The mine is comprised of two main mining methods, underhand drift and fill and long hole stopeing. The mass blast project stated in 2012 as Value in Use project between Barrick, Southwest Energy and Orica, the goal of this project is to be able to blast an entire drilled stope in one blasting event instead of taking multiple blasts. This will improve productivity by eliminating intermediate blasts, reducing additional blast time, eliminate drill hole cleaning due to the previous blast. Project implantation started in the fourth quarter of 2013 and mass blasting has been common practice throughout all of 2014. STOPPING PRACTICE AT GOLDSTRIKE BEFORE MASS BLAST PROJECT The production from the Goldstrike mine is approximately 70% from stopes. The timely completion of all stoping blocks is imperative to maintaining the plan, delays in the execution of any particular block can have detrimental ripple down effects as neighbouring stoping blocks become delayed. Before the implementation of this project the standard practice for Goldstrike was to: 1. Drill the entire stope 2. Blast a bottom shot, normally between 10 feet and 20 feet off the bottom of the slot rings. This would be mucked out before the next shot 3. Blast a pull through shot, this included the raise and one or two production rings. Again mucking this out before the next shot 4. Blast production rings, one or two more blasts depending on stope size. In most cases between each of these blasts the holes in the other rings of the stope would have to be cleaned. This meant either cleaning manually using air and water, or mechanically cleaning with a bench drill. In many cases this resulted in delays in completing the stoping block."

Jan 1, 2015

By Charles B. Henderson

DESPITE the loss, by enemy conquest, of a high percentage of our normal sources of supply for tin, the position of this important metal is easier today than that of rubber and a long list of other strategic materials, many of which are produced in this country. Actually, there is no shortage of tin for essential war purposes, owing to a strict control of its use, to increasing considerably the amount of secondary tin available, and to the foresight of the Government in authorizing the Reconstruction Finance Corp., as early as June, 1940, to acquire and produce certain critical and strategic materials of which tin was one of the most important. The construction of the Longhorn Smelter on the Gulf Coast in Texas is an important part of this program.

Jan 1, 1943

By Robert J. Rothwell

Underground mining of coal by longwall mining methods has not been a predominant technique in Ohio. To date, only five mines in the state utilize this method, however, the technique has sparked a certain amount of controversy. As a mining technique, longwalling was introduced into southeastern Ohio in the early 1970's but it did not attract public attention until the mines began moving into privately held surface lands. This occurred coincidentally at about the same time that the state of Ohio began to regulate the environmental impacts of underground mining. Prior to the passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in 1977, (SMCRA), Ohio's reclamation law, Chapter 1513 Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C. 1513) did not regulate underground coal mines. As a result of SMCRA, the Ohio Statute was amended in 1978, to include regulation of the surface effects of subsidence. The inevitable result was that existing mines were immediately subject to regulations that were not considered during the initial mine planning process. (For an excellent survey of Ohio Laws that deal with coal mine subsidence, see Zima, 1985. ) The problem faced at that time by both the coal industry and the Ohio Division of Reclamation (the agency within ODNR charged with implementing O.R.C. Ch. 1513.1, was that of attempting to superimpose permitting requirements, and design performance standards onto mines that' had been operational for a number of years.

Jan 1, 1986

By Jay F. Colinet, John A. Organiscak

In This Chapter [Which dust source to address first How much air and water are needed Keeping dust out of the walkway Moving workers upwind Dealing with the stage loader-crusher Gob and wing curtains to aid airflow The shearer-clearer system Modified support movement practices and Dust control for future longwalls ] Controlling longwall dust is not easy. Longwall production levels are high, and there are several different sources of dust to contend with. If dust levels are high, the initial effort should be devoted to finding which source is the cause. Then, efforts to reduce dust can be concentrated where they will have the most impact. To control dust at longwalls, a large amount of ventilation air and spray water must be used. The water must be sprayed correctly so as not to blow dust into the walkway. Techniques to change local airflow patterns can be helpful. The shearer-clearer, as well as gob and wing curtains, are examples of such techniques. DECIDING WHICH DUST SOURCE TO ADDRESS FIRST [If a longwall is out of compliance with dust standards, knowing where the extra dust is coming from helps to get back in compliance quickly.]

Jan 6, 2003

By Robert A. Jankowski, J. Harrison Daniel, Fred N. Kissell

Introduction Longwall coal mining in the US has steadily increased since its introduction in 1960. There are now 108 systems operating. (Sprouls, 1986). Advantages of longwall mining include higher productivity, improved safety, and greater coal recovery. Respirable dust, however, is one of the more serious obstacles to realizing the full potential of longwall mining. Early in 1980, the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) initiated extensive in-house and contract research to identify and evaluate effective methods of controlling respirable dust exposure of longwall face personnel (Niewiadomski, Jankowski, and Kissell, 1981). It was found that several control procedures must be combined to assure compliance, using control techniques appropriate to the dust source. These techniques can typically be grouped into the following categories: reduction of dust generation; dilution of dust; capture or knockdown of dust; and dust avoidance. Control techniques can be divided into basic and effective dust control techniques; additional necessary controls; and optional supplementary controls. This information should allow longwall mine operators to select control methods applicable to their particular operations and to develop a dust control plan that meets Federal dust standards. Basic and effective dust control techniques There are three basic dust control techniques (Taylor and Jankowski, 1982) that should be implemented on all longwall mining operations. • A passive barrier or external water spray system design that confines shearer generated dust near the face and away from the operators. • Large quantities of water through the sprays, particularly the drum sprays, to aid in dust knockdown and prevent dust becoming airborne. • A cutting sequence that allows the shearer operators to work primarily on the intake-air side of the lead cutting drum. Shearer clearer There are some poorly designed shearer-mounted spray systems with nozzles directed upwind at the cutting and loading zone of the intake-side drum. These actually carry dust away from the face and upstream of the drum. Where, it mixes with the clean intake air (Fig. la,) and is carried out into the walkway over the shearer operators. The Bureau developed a novel shearer spray system, called the shearer clearer. It takes advantage of the air-moving capabili-

Jan 10, 1986

By Robert A. Jankowski, George E. Niewiadomski

INTRODUCTION The utilization of longwall mining technology in the United States has steadily increased since the first longwall plow system was installed in 1952. At the errs of FY 1992, some 76 coal mines were employing longwall mining systems for coal extraction, and approximately 78 shearer and 3 plow faces are operating nationwide at any given time. Although the number of operating longwalls has remained relatively constant over the last five years, longwall production levels have increased significantly during this period. During the same timeframe, the number of continuous miner sections has decreased by 13 pct., from approximately 1438 in FY 1988 to less than 1250 in FY 1992. According to Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) data, the average production of longwall sections increased from approximately 2400 tons per shift (tps) in FY 1988 to more than 3100 tps FY 1992. In fact, the average production has more than tripled since 1978, when it was only 850 tps. Approximately 25 pct. of operating longwalls are capable of producing in excess of 4000 tps. Longwall production currently accounts for nearly 36 percent of U.S. underground coal production, compared to 4 pct. in 1978. These improvements are attributed to improved longwall equipment and increased availability, larger longwall panels and automation. While longwalls are highly productive and offer other advantages, operations employing this method of mining continue to experience dust compliance problems more frequently than other mining system. Although dust levels have remained relatively unchanged over the past five years, averaging 1.6 mg/m3 and 1.9 mg/m3 based on results of operator and inspector sampling, respectively, during FY 1992, approximately 25 pct. of the operating longwalls were in noncompliance during any given bimonthly sampling cycle. Although modest gains in longwall dust control technology have been made, these have been overshadowed by significant increases in production rates. As more coal is mined, more dust is generated (Figure 1). Therefore, the increase in longwall productivity has meant that far more dust is being produced which must be controlled. [ ] In view of the current compliance record, any efforts to further increase longwall output, as has been forecasted, must be accompanied by: (1) the reduction of dust levels at existing operations through the proper installation and maintenance of suitable engineering dust controls; and (2) the advancement of dust control technology for today's and future longwalls that will enable all face personnel o work in an environment that is free of excessive levels of respirable coal mine dust. MSHA'S RESPIRABLE DUST CONTROL PROGRAM Since 1972, federal regulations have required each coal mine operator to continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift in the active workings at or below 2.0 mg/m3 through the application of environmental dust control methods. The regulations provide for further reduction in the dust standard whenever the

Jan 1, 1993

By S Grimsey, E Janetzki, J Emery

Floor failure on the longwall face is a complex problem due to the dynamic interaction between the surrounding strata and powered roof supports involving multiple variables. It can also be highly problematic and costly when not well understood as there are significantly less remedies available post event. This was the early experience at the case study mine where significant lost time was incurred due to unplanned delays in the first two panels. To detect and prevent such occurrences is clearly the best approach, hence a tool to predict both floor failure occurrence and magnitude prior to mining was developed. Several parameters were determined as the key drivers for the failure events that had been experienced at this site. These parameters were, in list of influence from highest to lowest, material strength, retreat rate and the presence of water. The parameters were evaluated using a semi quantitative risk rating system ‘Heave Risk’ and given a weighting per their apparent influence. This ‘expert system’ methodology was selected as the use of risk rating systems in underground coal mining is well established. The heave risk model was first applied to previously mined panels. It accurately identified all areas of known major floor heave, with clearly defined areas of low and high risk apparent. The heave risk model was then used prior to mining and evaluated post mining based on observed conditions. It was found to also be highly accurate for prediction. The variability of each parameter and its influence on the overall risk rating is illustrated and discussed.

Nov 29, 2022

By R. H. Thorpe

In the earliest days of mining coal the obvious method was by bord and pillar working. Longwall in Britain developed from this as an expedient to overcome bottlenecks arising from ? 1) increasing depth of seams causing roof control difficulties; and 2) ventilation problems. This system became almost universal particularly in the thicker seams, where faces of up to one mile in length were not uncommon. Coal getting in these faces was usually by pick and shovel, filled into small waggons of up to 15 cwts capacity. These waggons ran on rails laid alongside the coal face and were often taken away from the face to the main haulage roads by horses. The roof was supported by rigid props and the wastes were normally controlled by strip packing. This system of mining was very flexible and worked well down to sections of about 3'6"

Jan 1, 1976

By Frank Doxey

AT Dominion Steel & Coal Corp. it has long been recognized that continued mechanization of mine operations is necessary in the Pictou, Cumberland, and Sidney coal fields of Nova Scotia. The varied physical conditions in these fields call for special consideration of individual cases before planning is finalized. Because standard equipment cannot be procured which would operate successfully, many experiments have been necessary over the years to keep pace with the progress made in other countries. There are two mines, producing 2000 tpd, located in the Pictou coal field. The field is badly distorted and crossed by many faults. Seams are highly inclined and irregular and vary in thickness from 5 to 40 ft. Entries are difficult to maintain because of squeezing of the coal ribs and movement of the roof and pavement.

Jan 7, 1954

By J. J. McDougall

Until quite recently, the coal in the Cape Breton field was won from comparatively thick seams with light cover, and from submarine areas, and the system of mining naturally followed was pillar-and-stall. This sytem permitted of cheap extraction, and enabled production from localities where other methods could not be employed to good advantage. Thus the pillar-and-stall system, applied to conditions as stated, justified its adoption. Our working seams today, however, are practically all under heavy cover, or are moving in that direction, and with this gradual increase in cover came the increased cost of roadway maintenance. At Princess colliery, the system of pillar-and-stall was followed until roof and bottom conditions became such that further operations were unprofitable, and the longwall method was then adopted as an economic necessity. This fact should be borne in mind when operating costs of both systems are being compared. The longwall method is not held as a cure for all difficulties of heavy cover, but through it these difficulties can be overcome with less expense than by pillar-and-stall. The longwall system of mining, strictly speaking, is one by which a seam of coal is totally extracted in one operation. There are, however, many modifications of longwall, and in some cases it is difficult to determine whether certain practices should be classed as longwall or pillar-and-stall, or a combination of both.

Jan 1, 1928

By T J. Sullivan, H Pinkster, G Swarbrick

From 2002 to 2006, longwall mining was undertaken directly beneath the Cataract Tunnel, which is a 100-year-old, heritage-listed tunnel in Hawkesbury Sandstone responsible for delivering 20 per cent of Sydney’s annual water supply. At one location, undermining resulted in movement of at least 350 mm along a known fault that transects the tunnel. During this movement, the continued operation of the tunnel was ensured through a careful system of planning, monitoring and management.Of key importance to the success of the operation was the use of advanced numerical modelling to guide operations at all levels, including feasibility assessment, pre-mine mitigation works, monitoring design, operation performance and post-mining condition. This allowed many aspects of the potential impacts to be explored, including joint movements, rock mass deformations and changes in permeability. A key challenge was to successfully model near-field influences on adverse geological structure due to very far-field effects. This paper explains the model’s conceptual development, calibration, performance and limitations.Modelling provided the confidence to manage the impacts of large mining-induced movement on key infrastructure and ultimately predicted fault movement accurately. The fault movement remains one of the highest ever recorded due to mine subsidence.CITATION:Swarbrick, G, Sullivan, T J and Pinkster, H, 2014. Longwall mining beneath critical infrastructure – prediction versus performance of the Cataract Tunnel, New South Wales, Australia, in Proceedings AusRock 2014: Third Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference , pp 157–166 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Nov 5, 2014

By Joseph Kuti

Longwall mining is the term used for the underground extraction of a wide and deep panel of coal. Such a panel may be blocked out by one or more entries on either side ("head" and "tail") of a longwall face. If all the entries are pre-driven, the panel extraction is termed longwall retreat mining. With one exception, all the longwall faces in the United States are of this type. (1) prior to the general decline in the rates of production with Continuous Miners, the development of the multiple entries generally kept ahead of the longwall extraction rate. This is no longer the case: longwall extraction rates far exceed the rate of development. In addition to this problem, in newly established mines, the development of a haulage and bleeder system based on multiple entries results in a lead-time of three years or more before longwall mining can be applied. This is one reason why earlier projections and much of the optimism attached to longwall mining as a principal "savior" in the energy crisis should be viewed with some caution.

Jan 1, 1978

By A. B. Szwilski

"The various elements of longwall mine design are reviewed, particularly as they apply to condition s in the coalfields of the Plains region of Alberta. The following recommendations are made: (1) optimum panel lengths of 1000 to 2000 metres; (2) face lengths of 100 to 150 metres; (3) the use of retreat methods; (4) the restriction of floor undulations to less than 15 degrees. IntroductionThis article considers the elements of longwall mine design and is part of a short study that has been made of the feasibility of longwall mining in the Plains region, Alberta, Canada. The Plains region, with about 20 million tonnes, accounts for more than 80% of the coal resources of Alberta. The coalbearing strata in the Plains region cover an area of about 95,000 square miles. The geological formations dip very gently toward the southwest and, from a mining point of view, may be considered horizontal. The depth of the coal seams varies from several metres to over 650 metres. However, it is not anticipated that underground mining will be extended beyond the depth range of 25 to 250 metre s.The coal seams in the Plains region have been subject to many small mining operations in the past. The majority of these small mines were limited to a depth of about 50 metres, working mainly by room-and-pillar methods, although hand-filled longwall mining was often used.The development of new underground mining operations in the Plains region will have to be on a 'start-from-scratch' basis, especially regarding the installation of equipment. Longwall mining is more mechanized than any other method of mining and requires careful attention for the selection of new and expensive equipment. There have been many proven longwall advance and retreat systems in Europe and North America; mining conditions in the Plains region are more similar to those in the United States. Therefore, it will be essential for new mining pro jects in the Plains region to commence with proven system s and equipment; in time, perhaps an experimentation process could be attempted as experience is gained.Generally, the coal face is the key factor in mine productivity, which depends a great deal on equipment reliability, training and experience of the operators. The original design of coal faces must be flexible enough to cater for potential improvements so that running time can be increased."

Jan 1, 1980

By Ernest A. Curth

An estimated 49 billion tons or 29 percent, of the coal reserve base to a depth of 1,000 feet in the eastern United States fall in the 28- to 42-inch range. Often left out as a consequence of selective mining, it is a paramarginal source that will become increasingly important. At present, all active thin seam longwalls are located in the Eastern Coal Province, and a number of operations have been suspended due to the erosion of the market for metallurgical coal. Extensive premining studies, appropriate mine planning, reliable equipment that is designed with ergonomics in mind, adequate roof support, intensive training, and strong face discipline are the ingredients that provided a measure of consistency in production for the last 10 to 16 years, particularly in the Pennsylvania bituminous coalfield where single drum shearers dominate. Plows, which were found to be very productive in suitable strata in Europe, are used in the Pocahontas field. Low seam four- and six-legged shields have been introduced recently. The future holds automation at progressive levels. The first step is batch control with the benefits of quickly applied roof support and reduction of workmen exposure to environmental hazards.

Jan 1, 1981

By William Harrison, Robert H. Trent

GENERAL DESCRIPTION History The most striking feature of mining in the United States has been the infrequent use of longwall systems. This system, which accounts for the majority of coal production in Europe, Japan, and other countries, is only recently growing out of its infancy in the mining of normal coal seams and is still untried in the mining of thick coal seams in the US. Its use in the mining of metal and nonmetal ore bodies has been virtually ig¬nored, except for isolated instances in trona, copper, and uranium. Longwall mining is believed to have originated in Shropshire, England, towards the end of the 17th cen¬tury (Laird, 1973). Although the method used would be considered primitive by today's standards, many of the basic concepts have remained unchanged. Longwall mining of coal in the US was first introduced before the turn of the century, but it never gained acceptance as it did in Europe. Historically, longwalling was a cyclic method where a single cut of coal was removed from the face on the producing shift each day, and the work of building stone packs in the gob and manually moving roof support was completed on the off shifts. Due to the amount of dead work, productivity was extremely low. In Europe, however, longwall methods were required despite the high costs involved, because only by this method could coal under heavy depth be mined with any reasonable degree of recovery. Reserves of coal lying under shallow cover, and therefore minable by room¬and-pillar methods, were long ago inadequate to supply most of Europe's coal requirements. In the US coal min¬ing has historically proceeded laterally with the new mines in virgin areas to replace old mines; in Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and many other countries, mining must proceed downward to greater depths. The depth of cover for most coal operations in the US is shallow, i.e., 61 to 305 m (200 to 1000 ft). This, combined with large reserves, has made room-and-pillar methods almost universally applicable. However, longwall systems were tried around the turn of the century. Whenever used, it was frequently noted that the opera¬tion was under the direction of men with foreign ex¬perience and was tried under ideal conditions. Some of the mines that were using longwall or had tried longwall prior to 1910 were the Radiant mine, CO; Vinton Coal Co., PA; Cambria Steel Co., Johnstown, PA; Grundy County and Spring Valley, IL; and unnamed mines in Washington, West Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa, and Kansas. As late as 1961, there was one circular longwall in operation at Centerville, IA. The first modern-day op¬eration to take advantage of European technology and longwall methods was Kaiser Steel Corp. at its Sunnyside mine near Price, UT. Due to deep cover and extremely poor roof conditions, combined with a need for in¬creased production, Kaiser management decided a new method was required and turned to longwall in 1961. The first longwall consisted of an Anderson Mavor shearer loader, British Jeffrey-Diamond conveying equip¬ment, and Dowty roof supports with a capacity made up of two and three 27-t (30-st) capacity props. After nor¬mal start-up problems, this unit averaged over 454 t (500 st) per shift (White and Palacios, 1976). During and after World War II, technology in hy¬draulics and controls had advanced to the point that self-advancing supports and hydraulic props were being developed. In 1960 only I % of West German produc¬tion was from mechanized longwall faces. This in¬creased to 37% in 1970 and 63% in 1973 (Kohlgruber, 1974). In 1976 there were 246 coal mines operating in the United Kingdom. Although this is only 50% of those operating ten years ago, the production has increased 42%, mainly through improvements in longwall equipment and methods (Hunter, 1976). In France and other European countries, the devel¬opment of longwall mechanization has been similar in seams up to 2.44 m (8 ft) thick. In seams that exceed 9.14 m (30 ft), a variety of longwall caving has been developed for coal seams with dips of 0 to 1.6 rad (0 to 90°). Those with the greatest success will be discussed later. As noted, the development of longwall mining to its present state of the art has mainly taken place since World War II with substantial gains in the last ten years. Mechanized longwall has been the result of several re¬lated major innovations (Jackson, 1975) 1) Development of the flexible armored face con¬veyor which can be installed along the face and moved forward without disassembly. 2) Development of face machines such as single and double drum shearer and coal plows which operate in conjunction with the armored conveyors. 3) Development of self-advancing hydraulic roof supports which now include chocks, chock shields, and shields. 4) Reliance of caving of the immediate roof based on proper planning and development. 5) Use of pneumatic slowing to enable extraction below overbuilt areas. The most recent developments in the mining of coal by longwall in the US include the introduction of shield supports at Kaiser's York Canyon mine in New Mexico, single-entry longwall development at Kaiser's Sunnyside mine, and Mid-Continent's advancing longwall system in Colorado. Metal and nonmetal longwall systems in the US have included the mining of copper at White Pine, MI; uranium in Utah and New Mexico, and trona in Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1982

This paper presents the results of a unique study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) from 2016 to 2019 to evaluate the effects of longwall-induced subsurface deformations on shale gas well casing integrity and underground miner safety and health. At both deep and shallow cover instrumentation sites, surface subsidence measurements, subsurface in-place inclinometer measurements, and underground pillar pressure measurements were conducted as longwall panels were mined. Comparisons of the deep and shallow cover test site results with those from a similar study under medium cover reveal an interesting longwall-induced response scenario. Under shallow and medium covers, measured horizontal displacements within the abutment pillar are one order of magnitude higher than those measured under deep cover. Conversely, measured vertical compressions under deep cover are one order of magnitude higher than those under shallow and medium covers. However, FLAC3D simulations of the casings indicate that, in all three cases, the P-110 production casings remain intact under longwall-induced deformations and compressions, which has serious implications for future mine design in areas where shale gas wells have been drilled ahead of mining.

Jan 7, 2020

By B. C. Lewis

The mining industry has experienced a general trend toward an increasing number of longwall operations, an increasing percentage of underground coal being mined by longwalls, and increasing productivity from the longwalls. Longwall operators have not yet reached a state of mining euphoria. Competitiveness both within the industry and from alternate fuel sources is forcing continued pursuit of higher productivities and lower costs. The following graphics present trends in the industry. Longwall mines, as defined for this presentation, are those reportedly having longwall installations in each of the respective years. Production from both the continuous miner and longwall units is included in the longwall mines. Non-Longwall mines are all other underground mines. Productivity calculations are based on total employee-hours associated with the operation.

Jan 1, 1990