PPCO Twist System - Coal Age

In addition to the annual U.S. longwall census, which pro-

vides technical details on some of America’s most productive

underground mines, Coal Age also offers an eye-opening

report on the decaying infrastructure along the Ohio River.

The Ohio River is a major coal artery and a major blockage

could give the grid a stroke.

DEPARTMENTS

4 Editorial

6 Coal in the News

7 World News

12 People

14 Dateline Washington

16 Calendar

46 Operating Ideas

48 Suppliers News

50 Product News

53 Classified

56 Legally Speaking

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 2 V O L . 1 1 7 N O . 2

FEATURE ARTICLES

20 Alabama Coal Transportation—A System in Change

22 Longwall Population Grows Amid Further M&A Activity

Two new installations and a new supplier, Caterpillar,

highlight the changing landscape of longwall mining

29 Tracks & Treads: Dozers and Loaders Dig into Production

Support Roles

Mining requires massive machines, capable of continuous

operation in tough conditions. The newest loader and dozer

models offer performance levels designed to meet the challenge.

36 LOCKED Out: Aging Locks and Dams Jeopardize Inland

Waterways

Is a catastrophic cascading systems failure about to occur

along the Ohio River?

42 FLSmidth Ups the Ante for Ludowici

46 Brazing of Carbide Mining Tools

COAL IN THE NEWS

6 Foresight Energy plans to launch IPO

6 Sierra Club uses gas money to fight coal

7 Signal Peak lifts force majeure

8 Patriot reduces met output, settles on selenium

10 Chicago Clean Energy remains in limbo

14 CONSOL Energy invests in coal projects

16 Kinder Morgan, Arch Coal to further expand

coal terminal network

18 Pier 6 handles largest coal loading in its 50-year history

18 Judge finds Cordero Rojo discriminated against employee

WORLD NEWS

7 Mechel completes Elga Railway

Palmer’s First China to sue QR National

8 Buma obtains contract extension

New South Wales coal production expected to increase

10 Vale ships coal from Mozambique to India

Australian coal mine forced to pay for emissions

in landmark case

THIS ISSUE

February 2012 www.coalage.com 1

INLAND WATERWAYS/36

NEWS/4

SCREENING MACHINES UPDATE/42

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT/29

http://www.coalage.com

In a questionable effort to save money and create greater effi-

ciency, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has proposed

merging the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement (OSM) into the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM). OSM is charged with balancing the nation’s need for

continued domestic coal production with protecting the envi-

ronment. It was created in 1977 when Congress enacted the

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The

Bureau of Land Management manages vast stretches of federal

land (245 million acres). With respect to coal, the bureau coordi-

nates the leasing process and collects royalties.

The idea immediately met with considerable criticism. House Natural Resources

Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) said during late October 2011 he had seri-

ous concerns about this Secretarial Order to suddenly and dramatically alter the man-

agement of coal mining and the multiple-use of Western BLM lands. “The Obama

administration has not made secret its desire to put an end to America’s coal mining

industry and this appears to be one more step in that direction,” Hastings said.

Not letting common sense get in the way of a bad idea, Secretary Salazar forged

ahead. The Department of Interior (DoI) had originally set December 1, 2011, as the

date for the merger by Executive Order, but in the face of strong opposition, it delayed

the decision and decided it would hold a series of meetings around the country to

solicit input from “stakeholders” on the proposed consolidation. He directed OSM

and BLM officials as well as other Interior officials to report by February 15, 2012.

While the final decision and the results of those discussions have not yet been

made public, the reports from the meetings reinforce the fact that most people think

it’s a dumb idea. It is strongly opposed by almost everyone outside the DoI. One report

from the Denver meeting said the explanation by officials drew jeers from a crowd of

about two dozen people. A natural resources lawyer cleverly joked the Obama admin-

istration had finally put forward an idea with which both miners and environmental

activists could agree.

The National Mining Association (NMA) attended the hearing in Washington and

also noted how rarely a proposal has been so comprehensively opposed by industry

and environmental stakeholders. “It’s very unusual for every witness to come down

against a proposal like this and still have it more forward,” said NMA’s Associate

General Counsel Bradford Frisby, who testified against the proposal.

Many have questioned the legality of the proposed merger, given the clear direc-

tion the Congress gave under SMCRA. The Act says that OSM’s authorities over coal

mining are not to be delegated to other agencies or subordinated under other authori-

ties. In May 2011, Coal Age reported how mission creep at OSM was usurping the

authority of state agencies to regulate coal mining and further delaying permits. OSM

abandoned the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone rule. In 2010, OSM issued a memo asserting

the agency’s authority to interfere with state permitting decisions, contradicting

SMCRA, which grants states with an approved state program exclusive jurisdiction

over surface coal operations within its borders. Considering the direction the agency

has taken recently, one has to wonder was the merger simply a bad idea that should be

withdrawn or is it part of a plan to further complicate the permitting process?

Coal Age, Volume 117, Issue 2, (ISSN 1040-7820) is published monthly by Mining

Media Inc., 10 Sedgwick Drive, Englewood, Colorado 80113 (mining-media.com).

Periodicals postage paid at Englewood, CO, and additional mailing offices. Canada

Post Publications Mail Agreement No. 40845540. Canada return address: Station A, PO

Box 54, Windsor ON N9A 6J5, Email: [email protected]. Current and back

issues and additional resources, including subscription request forms and an editorial

calendar, are available online at www.coalage.com.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: Free and controlled circulation to qualified subscribers.

Non-qualified persons may subscribe at the following rates: USA and Canada, 1 year,

$56.00, 2 year, $96.00, 3 year, $162.00, Student, $16.00, Outside the USA and

Canada, 1 year, $77.00, 2 year, $137.00, 3 year, $225.00 surface mail (1 year,

$145.00, 2 year, $257.00 airmail delivery). For subscriber services or to order single

copies, write to Coal Age, 8751 East Hampden, Suite B1, Denver, CO 80231 USA;

call +1.303.283.0640 (USA) or visit www.mining-media.com.

ARCHIVES AND MICROFORM: This magazine is available for research and retrieval of select-

ed archived articles from leading electronic databases and online search services, including

Factiva, LexisNexis, and Proquest. For microform availability, contact ProQuest at 800-521-

0600 or +1.734.761.4700, or search the Serials in Microform listings at www.proquest.com.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Coal Age, P.O. Box 1337, Skokie, IL 60076 USA.

REPRINTS: Mining Media Inc, 8751 East Hampden, Suite B1, Denver, CO 80231 USA

phone: +1.303.283.0640, fax: +1.303.283.0641, www.mining-media.com

PHOTOCOPIES: Authorization to photocopy articles for internal corporate, personal,

or instructional use may be obtained from the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)

at +1.978.750.8400. Obtain further information at www.copyright.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012: Coal Age, incorporating Coal and

Coal Mining & Processing. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

www.mining-media.com

Editor-In-Chief—Steve Fiscor, [email protected]

Western Field Editor—Russ Carter, [email protected]

European Editor—Simon Walker, [email protected]

Latin American Editor—Oscar Martinez, [email protected]

Associate Editor—Gina M. Tverdak, [email protected]

Associate Editor & Photographer—

Lee Buchsbaum, [email protected]

Graphic Designer—Austin St. Clair, [email protected]

Mining Media International

Editorial Office

11555 Central Parkway, Suite 401

Jacksonville, Florida 32224 U.S.A.

Phone: +1.904.721.2925

Fax: +1.904.721.2930

Mining Media International

Corporate Office

8751 East Hampden, Suite B1

Denver, Colorado 80231 U.S.A.

Phone: +1.303.283.0640

Fax: +1.303.283.0641

President/Publisher—Peter Johnson, [email protected]

Vice President of Sales & Marketing—John Bold, [email protected]

U.S. & Canada Sales Manager—Victor Matteucci, [email protected]

Scandinavia, UK and European Sales Manager—Colm Barry, [email protected]

German Sales Manager—Gerd Strasmann, [email protected]

Classified Advertising—Norm Rose, [email protected]

Show Manager—Tanna Holzer, [email protected]

Ad Traffic Manager—Erica Freeman, [email protected]

BY STEVE FISCOR

/ EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Proposed OSM-BLM Merger Offers

Miners and Activists Common Ground

e d i to r ’s n ot e

4 www.coalage.com

Steve Fiscor, Coal Age Editor-In-Chief

[email protected]

http://mining-media.com

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.mining-media.com

http://www.proquest.com


http://www.copyright.com



















Rumored as a possibility this year, Foresight Energy Partners,

owned by Chris Cline, filed February 2 with the U.S. Securities

and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering (IPO)

with a maximum offering price of $100 million. In the filing, the

company described itself as a low-cost producer of quality ther-

mal coal with expertise in developing highly productive under-

ground mines in the high-sulfur Illinois Basin.

Over the past decade, Foresight said it invested more than $1.5

billion in four mining complexes—Williamson, Sugar Camp,

Hillsboro and Macoupin—in Illinois with long reserve lives and

related transportation infrastructure that should “provide us with

significant sustainable free cash flow.”

Foresight said its first mining complex—Williamson, or Pond

Creek, near Johnston City—was the most productive under-

ground mine in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 on

a clean tons-per-produced-man-hour basis. “Our leading pro-

ductivity translates into low costs, and we believe we are the low-

est cost underground coal producer in the United States at $19.41

per ton in 2010,” the company said. Figures for 2011 were not

included.

According to the filing, the four complexes are designed to

support up to eight longwall mining systems, giving them a com-

bined production capacity of 65 million tons a year. The company

currently operates one longwall at Williamson and plans to start

new longwalls at both Sugar Camp and Hillsboro early this year,

“having already invested most of the expansion capital necessary

to develop these mines.”

Foresight said Sugar Camp and Hillsboro have the potential

for four and three longwalls, respectively. Sugar Camp, located

near Akin in Franklin County, also boasts the most prolific pro-

duction potential—up to 28 million tons annually, with Hillsboro

barely trailing at 27 million tons a year. Williamson’s output could

hit 7 million tons a year while Macoupin trails at 3 million tons

annually.

Sugar Camp also leads in total reserves with an estimated 1.32

billion tons. Next is Hillsboro with 879 million tons and

Williamson with 396 million tons. Macoupin has the least, about

360 million tons.

Foresight said it sells a significant portion of its coal under

long-term agreements with terms of one year or longer. The com-

pany markets and sells coal “to a diverse customer base including

electric utility and industrial companies in the eastern United

States, as well as the seaborne thermal coal market. In 2012, 2013

and 2014, the company said it has secured coal sales commit-

ments of approximately 12.8 million tons, 14 million tons and

11.7 million tons, respectively.

Cline Group spokeswoman Jennifer Kroen in St. Louis

declined comment on the IPO, adding other company officials

also did not want to discuss it at this time.

Raymond James analyst James Rollyson referred to Foresight

as “the CONSOL of the Illinois Basin.” Foresight’s IPO, he said,

has a good chance to be successful. “It has been a little bit of a

challenging public market. But they’re in the one basin that has

seen pricing hold up the best,” Rollyson said.

n e w s

Foresight Energy Plans to Launch IPO

6 www.coalage.com February 2012

B R E A K I N G N E W S±Sierra Club Uses Gas Money to Fight Coal

A blogger for TIME recently broke the news that the Sierra Club has accept-

ed more than $25 million in donations from the gas industry (mostly from

Chesapeake Energy) to help fund its Beyond Coal campaign. The envi-

ronmental non-governmental organization (NGO) accepted the money

over the course of three years (2007-2010), but refused an addition

$50 million. The article also sheds light on the relationship between for-

mer Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope and Chesapeake Energy CEO

Aubrey McLendon.

The revelation is unsettling, but the coal industry was not surprised. It has

been dealing with the NGO and fierce competition for many years. “Chesapeake

surreptitiously financed opposition to a competing fuel that it couldn’t beat in

the marketplace, and the club took dictation and money from the nation’s largest

hydraulic fracker,” said Luke Popovich, vice president of communications, National

Mining Association (NMA). An NMA report last year estimated the Sierra Club, which

takes pride in the fact it has halted the construction of 160 new coal-based pow-

er plants, has destroyed 116,872 permanent jobs and an additional 1.12 million

construction jobs throughout the country by blocking power plant construction.

Foresight Energy’s Sugar Camp mine (shown here) could eventually operate fourlongwalls.


Signal Peak Lifts Force MajeureAfter a somewhat rocky year in 2011 that featured brief idlings

resulting from roof falls and high carbon monoxide (CO) levels,

Montana’s Signal Peak longwall mine ushered in 2012 on a more

positive note. On January 4, Signal Peak Energy, which operates

the former Bull Mountain mine near Roundup in Musselshell

County, lifted a month-long force majeure declared after the

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) shut the mine in

early December because of higher-than-allowed CO concentra-

tions in a mined-out section of the mine. Company spokesman

Mike Dawson confirmed the force majeure no longer was in effect

and the mine was back in full production.

Despite last year’s interruptions, Signal Peak made progress in

continuing to ramp up production of subbituminous coal.

According to MSHA, the mine turned out 5.13 million tons of coal

in 2011, up from 4.38 million tons in 2010. Eventually, Signal

Peak’s annual output is expected to reach 12.5 million tons.

Alliance Sustains Its Positive MomentumAlliance Resource Partners rang up an 11th straight year of record

earnings in 2011 and Joseph Craft III, the company’s longtime

president and CEO, sees more of the same for 2012. The Tulsa,

Okla.-based master limited partnership posted a pretty good

fourth quarter, too. Full-year earnings were $389.4 million, up

21.3% over 2010. Net income totaled $91.7 million in the final

three months of last year, beating earnings of $87.3 million in the

year-ago quarter.

In 2011, Alliance, which operates in three geographic

regions—Central Appalachia, Northern Appalachia and the

Illinois Basin—produced 30.8 million tons and sold 31.9 million

tons. Craft said he expects those numbers to grow this year to 34-

35 million tons and 34.75-35.85 million tons, respectively, in 2012.

Alliance sold 8.2 million tons of coal in the fourth quarter, a gain

of 5.4% over the year-ago total. The increase was attributed in

part to the resumption of full production at the Pattiki under-

ground mine near Carmi in White County, Ill., and higher coal

sales at the Gibson North deep mine near Princeton in Gibson

County, Ind. Pattiki’s output in 2010 was hampered by the failure

of a conveyor-belt system that took several months to replace.

In Northern Appalachia, a longwall move at the Mountain

View underground mine in Tucker County, W.Va., during the

n e w s c o n t i n u e d

TOP 10 COAL-PRODUCING STATES

Mechel Completes Elga Railway

Mechel OAO has finished laying tracks from the Ulak station to the

massive Elga coking coal deposit which is being developed by

Mechel Mining’s Yakutugol subsidiary. The last section of track of

the 321-km railway link was laid in December 2011. The 40-billion-

ruble ($1.25 billion) construction project has opened traffic along

the entire route from Baikal-Amur Mainline’s Ulak station to the

Elga deposit.

“The railway’s completion is one of the most complicated and

important stages in implementing the unique project of developing

the Elga coal deposit, which is one of the world’s largest coking

coalfields. This project’s scale is unique for the mining industry.

Completion of railway construction together with the launch of

mining at the deposit in such a short time, considering the global

financial crisis in 2008-2009, once again proves Mechel is one of

the few companies with the potential to handle a project of such

magnitude,” said Igor Zyuzin, chairman, Mechel.

Mechel began constructing the Elga railway link in February

2008. The railway was built in difficult climatic and geological

conditions. A total of 76 bridges were built in the course of the rail-

way’s construction. Mining at the Elga open-pit began in August

2011, producing some 200,000 metric tons by the year’s end.

China Continues to Increase Coal Production Capacity

China added more than 95 million metric tons (mt) in coal output

capacities in 2011 with total output in the country’s 14 major col-

lieries reaching 3.2 billion mt, according to Liu Tienan, deputy

director of National Development and Reform Commission and

director of National Energy Administration. Speaking to China

Knowledge, Liu also noted China added 90 gigawatts (GW) in

installed power capacity last year, bringing the country total

capacity to 1,050 GW. In 2012, China will add 200 million mt in

coal output capacity and 70 GW in installed power capacity.

Palmer’s China First to Sue QR National

China First Pty Ltd. has launched an $8 billion lawsuit against QR

National Ltd. and QR Ltd. for an alleged breach of confidentiality

and misleading conduct over a proposed rail link between the

Galilee Basin coal region and the Central Queensland coast. The

Queensland Government recently granted significant project sta-

(in Thousand Short Tons)

Week Ending (1/28/12)

YTD ‘12 YTD ‘11 % Change

Wyoming 35,172 33,829 4.0

West Virginia 10,343 11,061 -6.5

Kentucky 8,256 8,670 -4.8

Pennsylvania 4,483 4,813 -6.9

Texas 3,158 3,199 -1.3

Indiana 2,770 2,981 -7.1

Illinois 2,720 2,770 -1.8

Montana 2,550 2,531 0.8

Colorado 2,537 1,855 36.8

North Dakota 2,238 2,317 -3.4

U.S. Total 83,438 84,722 -1.5

Continued on pg 8...


W O R L D N E W S ¸ ˛ ˝ ¸

A new 321-km railway will access a massive Elga met coal deposit.


fourth quarter resulted in lower coal sales volumes compared to

the corresponding 2010 quarter.

Alliance’s new Tunnel Ridge longwall mine should drive this

year’s increase, Craft said. With extensive reserves in Washington

County, Pa., and Ohio County, W.Va., Tunnel Ridge is in the

process of ramping up production of high-sulfur steam coal.

When in peak production, it should turn out about 6 million tons

annually.

Construction continues, meanwhile, on Alliance’s new Gibson

South underground mine near also in Gibson County. Operated

by a subsidiary, Gibson County Coal, Gibson South is targeted to

produce about 3.1 million tons of high-sulfur steam coal a year,

probably starting in 2014. The mine will be a continuous miner

operation.

Rosa Mine Reaches Full Commercial ProductionNovaDx Ventures Corp., during December 2011, moved to full

commercial production at the Rosa mine.

“We are pleased the Rosa mine and wash plant are beginning

to operate at our commercial production target of 120,000 tons

per year of clean coal,” said Neil MacDonald, CEO, NovaDx. “As

we expected, our Rosa wash plant is producing a high-quality

product, and we have recently negotiated higher contract prices

for our coal in 2012.”

Patriot Reduces Met Output, Settles on SeleniumPatriot Coal plans to implement proactive measures at its Southern

West Virginia operations to curtail higher cost production in

response to weaker market demand for metallurgical coal. The

company will idle one contractor-operated mine and two sub-

sidiary-operated production units in the Rocklick complex. Two

contractor-operated mines in the Wells complex will be idled.

“Metallurgical coal demand has trended steadily downward in

recent weeks, most notably in the export market,” said Patriot

President and CEO Richard M. Whiting. “These production cuts,

in conjunction with other cost-reduction measures being imple-

mented concurrently, are aimed at lowering our mining costs,

aligning production with identified sales, and preserving high-

quality reserves for a stronger market. During 2011 we increased

metallurgical coal production to match the needs of the market.

The modular nature of our Met Build-Out program allows flexibil-

ity to dial production up or down in line with market circum-

stances.”

In related news, Patriot Coal has entered into a consent decree

with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the West Virginia

Highlands Conservancy and the Sierra Club to resolve claims under

the Clean Water Act relating to its mining activities in West Virginia.


tus for QR National’s proposed Central Queensland Integrated Rail

Project, which would link multiple mines in the Galilee and Bowen

basins to coastal ports.

China First, a Clive Palmer-owned exploration and coal mine

development company, gave formal notice that it intends to file a

damages claim in the Queensland Supreme Court against QR

National. The company alleges QR National, which is more than

34% owned by the Queensland Government, breached a confiden-

tiality agreement with China First Pty Ltd.

China First’s proposed $8 billion coal mine and infrastructure

project in the untapped Galilee Basin had also been granted signif-

icant project status by the Queensland Coordinator-General. “Our

China First project will create 6,000 jobs during construction and

will generate an estimated $4.6 billion per year in export revenues

once operational,” China First’s spokeswoman Baljeet Singh said.

“Now we have QR National in conjunction with the Queensland

Government claiming it can build the rail link and create hundreds

of jobs in what looks like a bid to score some political mileage in

the government’s bid for re-election. This is an outrage as we had

already been in commercial discussions and exchanges with QR

National for cooperation in the joint development of rail and port

facilities supporting the Galilee Basin.

“We have advised the Coordinator-General of the improper use

for which the subject significant project declaration regarding QR

National has been made and reserve our rights against him and the

Queensland Government,” Singh said, “We intend to seek damages

of $8 billion and will also seek injunctions against QR National and

other relevant parties seeking to restrain them from dealing with

QR National in respect of the Galilee Basin and its corridor and

associated port facilities.”

The China First Coal Project includes a large scale thermal coal

mine near Alpha, west of Emerald. The proposed mine will be linked

to the new T4-T9 coal terminal at Abbot Point near Bowen by a new

471-km, heavy-haul railway line.

Buma Obtains Contract Extension

Indonesia’s second-largest coal mining contractor PT Bukit

Makmur Mandiri Utama (Buma) signed an extension on a mining-

service contract with Bayan Resources worth $820 million.

According to The Jakarta Post, the term of the contract was extend-

ed to December 31, 2017. During the period, Buma will move 261

million bank cubic meters of overburden and transport 29 million

metric tons of coal. Buma is the second-largest coal-mining con-

tractor in Indonesia, providing mining services under long-term

operating agreements with some of Indonesia’s largest coal pro-

ducers, such as PT Berau Coal and PT Adaro Indonesia, as well as

PT Kideco Jaya Agung and subsidiaries of PT Bayan Resources.

New South Wales Coal Production Expected to Increase

The New South Wales Mineral Council is expecting coal production

across the state to increase by as much as a third this year.

According to ABC News, an additional 50 million metric tons of coal

is expected to be mined in 2012 if extensions and new develop-

ments are given the go-ahead by planning officials.

Continued from pg 7...


Continued on pg 10...

NovaDx Venture’s Rosa mine moved to full commercial production in December.The company is targeting 120,000 tpy of clean coal.


As a result of the negotiated settlement, the company has

agreed to a comprehensive plan which provides for the necessary

time and flexibility in the development, selection and implemen-

tation of emerging technologies to meet compliance deadlines in

the future. To resolve claims related to the consent decree, the

company will pay $7.5 million in civil penalties, to be allocated

between the federal government and the West Virginia Land Trust

for land preservation projects within the Kanawha River and

Guyandotte River watersheds.

The consent decree, which has been filed with the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, is subject to a

public comment period and must be approved by the court before

it becomes effective.

Armstrong Will Go PublicIllinois Basin coal producer Armstrong Energy was moving for-

ward in early 2012 with an initial public offering (IPO) it hoped to

close before the end of the first quarter. Armstrong, the parent

company of Armstrong Coal, filed for the IPO with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission last October. The company

wants to raise about $91 million by going public in the United

States.

Armstrong is owned by Yorktown Partners L.P., a private equi-

ty firm. It is following in the footsteps of two other small- to mid-

sized coal producers—Oxford Resource Partners and Rhino

Resource Partners—that completed successful IPOs in 2010.

Martin Wilson, Armstrong Energy president, is targeting the end

of March for the IPO.

Armstrong Coal is strictly a steam coal producer that operates

exclusively, at least for now, in the western Kentucky counties of

Muhlenberg, Ohio, Union and Webster. It operates three under-

ground and four surface mines and controls an estimated 319

million tons of proven and probable high-sulfur coal reserves.

Thanks to two new mines, Kronos and Lewis, Armstrong antic-

ipates its production will reach 9 million tons this year, up from

7.2 million tons in 2010. Tonnage amounts for 2011 are not yet

available.

Chicago Clean Energy Remains in LimboA $3 billion coal gasification project proposed for Chicago’s South

Side was in limbo in early 2012 following a split decision by the

Illinois Commerce Commission. But the developer, Chicago

Clean Energy, its parent company, New York-based Leucadia

National Corp. and supporters vowed to fight on in hopes of

reversing the ICC’s order. By a 3-2 vote on January 10, the com-

mission voted to ask two of the state’s large utility companies—

Ameren Corp. and Nicor Inc.—to purchase only 84% of the

synthetic natural gas that would be produced by the plant.

Chicago Clean Energy wants the companies to buy all of the syn-

gas and cover all maintenance expenses. Chicago Clean Energy

spokeswoman Eileen Boyce said the ruling would be appealed,

and the company was hopeful it eventually would prevail.

Regulator’s Refuse Request to Recover Sporn’s Retirement CostsAmerican Electric Power (AEP) was weighing its options in late

January after Ohio regulators turned down its request to recover

about $56 million in costs related to the planned retirement of a


In the Hunter Valley, an extension of the Bengalla mine is

almost complete, while Wambo is applying to extract a further three

longwall panels at its Warkworth site. But Acting CEO of the

Minerals Council, Sue Ern Tan, said there is still a long road ahead.

“Obviously we have a very rigorous assessment process here in New

South Wales and the projects have to go through that process for

being approved and then come online.”

The Minerals Council is concerned thousands of Hunter Valley

mining jobs could still be at risk from the carbon tax, despite

increased coal production. The Federal Government rejects claims

that there will be mass job losses under the carbon reduction mea-

sures. But Ern Tan said mines are still anxious about the future.

“18 coal mines will face premature closure under the tax and those

mines employ 3,000 people in New South Wales and 1,100 in

Queensland. Those are the ones that are at risk in the first three

years of the tax. In Australia, we actually produce six per cent of the

world’s coal and yet we make such an important contribution local-

ly,” said Ern Tan.

Vale Ships Coal from Mozambique to India

According to Agencia de Informacao de Mocambique, Vale made its

first transshipment of 37,600 metric tons (mt) of coal off the coast

of central Mozambique. The exports were destined for India. Since

September 2011, Vale has exported 174,000 mt of coal from

Mozambique.

China National Coal Posts Big Profits in 2011

China National Coal Group, parent company of the country’s second

largest coal miner, China Coal Energy Co. Ltd., reaped a gross profit of

CNY16.38 billion ($2.6 billion) last year up by 35.2% year-on-year,

China Knowledge reported. China National Coal produced 164 million

metric tons (mt) of raw coal last year up by 11.4% year-on-year. In 2012,

the group aims to produce 170 million mt of raw coal. The group current-

ly has 43.5 billion mt of coal resources under control. Coal production

capacity operation and under construction totals 258 million mt.

Australian Coal Mine Forced to Pay for Emissions in Landmark Case

In a landmark decision, the Land and Environment Court has held

that one of New South Wales coal mines should have to pay to off-

set some of its greenhouse gas emissions as a condition of opera-

tion. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the provisional

decision was a win for the Hunter Environment Lobby represented

by the Environmental Defender Office which had appealed to the

court over the Minister for Planning decision to both consolidate

historical consent authorities of the Ulan mine, near Mudgee and

double its operational life and capacity to 2031.

The Xstrata and Mitsubishi-owned Ulan coal mines, backed by

the minister and the Department of Planning, had argued that off-

setting the mine’s scope one emissions was discriminatory, given

that there were at least 50 coal mines operating in NSW. The gov-

ernment told the court the carbon tax regime was a preferable poli-

cy. The parties settle the details and set a timetable by February 13

before final orders are made.

Continued from pg 8...


˛



450-megawatt coal unit at the Philip Sporn power plant near New

Haven, W.Va.

With the utlitiy planning to shutter about 6,000 megawatts of

coal-fired generating capacity, including more than 2,000

megawatts in Ohio, over the next several years because of new

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules, the decision by the

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio could have broader ramifica-

tions. Other Ohio utility companies, including FirstEnergy Corp.,

have announced plans to close older coal plants largely because

of the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule and Cross-State Air

Pollution Rule. FirstEnergy said in late January it would retire six

vintage coal plants, including four in Ohio and one each in

Pennsylvania and Maryland.

AEP’s cost recovery application drew opposition from a wide

range of stakeholders, ranging from the Ohio Office of

Consumers’ Counsel to FirstEnergy Solutions, a FirstEnergy sub-

sidiary, to the commission staff.

Staff argued that AEP’s Ohio Power subsidiary, which operates

Sporn, already has been compensated for the costs it sought to

recover from customers, saying Sporn 5 should have been fully

depreciated in 2010. The unit was built in 1960.

AEP disagreed. The company maintained that depreciation

rates established more than 15 years ago should not be used to

override its accounting books. AEP claimed the closure costs

reflected in depreciation rates substantially underestimated the

actual closure costs that apply to Sporn 5, “in light of the dramatic

intervening increase in environmental regulations that apply to

coal-burning power plants.”

But AEP’s arguments failed to persuade the regulators. Citing

Ohio law, the commission said it lacked the legal authority to

approve the company’s request. “Just as the construction and

maintenance of an electric generating facility are fundamental to

the generation component of electric service, we find that so too

is the closure of an electric generating facility,” the PUCO said.


P E O P L E I N T H E N E W S

Western Fuels Association has appointed Brad Hanson vice president of opera-

tions. He will be responsible for the Dry Fork mine (Gillette, Wyo.), the New Horizon

mine (Nucla, Colo.) and the Colowyo mine (Meeker, Colo). John Barnes has been

appointed manager at the Dry Fork mine and Chris McCourt has been appointed

manager at the Colowyo mine. Mark Pettibone has been appointed vice president

of marketing and communications.

Arch Coal, Inc. recently announced the Arch Coal Sales’ London team: Alexander

Newman has been appointed vice president of international thermal coal sales-

Europe and Wyn Davis has been appointed vice president of international metal-

lurgical coal sales-Europe. Arch’s new European office will open March 1 at Heron

Tower in London.

Peabody Energy has appointed Bradley E. Phillips senior vice president of tran-

sition services in Australia. He will continue to lead the organizational integra-

tion of Macarthur Coal and Peabody Energy Australia.

The United Company announced Jack A. Hudson has been

promoted to CFO.

Safety Solutions International, Inc. has appointed Dr.

Lori Guasta director of organizational behavior and emerg-

ing markets.

Tassco Steel has appointed Grady Covin industrial sales

engineer.

EmberClear has appointed Keith Calder to the board of

directors.

ECSI, LLC has appointed Fred Eastridge

director of civil engineering services;

and Filiberto Gomez, PhD and Sabry

Hanna, PhD have been appointed senior

geologists. Andrew Beat has joined the

Pikeville office as senior

project manager and

Russ Adams has joined

the Owensboro office as

project manager.

Doug Hardman announced he is retiring as CEO of J.H. Fletcher, but has been

appointed vice chairman of business development. The company announced

Greg Hinshaw has been appointed CEO and Rod Duncan has been appointed

president. Eddie Alford has been appointed head of the customer service group.

Mine Radio Systems has appointed Steven Zakaib executive

vice president of operations.

Martin Engineering has announced the

retirement of Chief Technical Director

Todd Swinderman.

Kaydon Bearings Division has appointed Michael

Stofferahn vice president of North American sales.

BJM Pumps has appointed Kelly Leth western regional

sales manager.

Blastcrete Equipment Co. has appointed Maury Bagwell

general manager.

Stonie Barker Jr., former chairman and CEO of Island Creek Coal Co., recently

died. Barker received his degree in mining engineering from Virginia Tech in 1951

and was employed by Island Creek Coal until his retirement in 1984. Barker was

called to Washington to represent the coal operators after months of bitter negoti-

ations during the coal strike of 1978. He was named the 1985 “Coal Man of the

Year” by the National Coal Association, a predecessor of NMA, presiding as chair-

man of the group from 1982 to 1984, and serving as chairman of the board of the

Bituminous Coal Operators’ Association from 1978 to 1980.

m

Andrew Beat

Maury Bagwell

Grady Covin

Fred Eastbridge

Jack A. Hudson

Russ AdamsSabry Hanna

Steven Zakaib

Todd Swinderman

Filiberto Gomez


AEP spokesman Jeff Rennie said on January 30 that a final

decision had not been made on whether to appeal the commis-

sion ruling.

CONSOL Energy Invests in Coal ProjectsComing off a strong fourth quarter that resulted in an 87% boost in

earnings, CONSOL Energy in late January trimmed its capital budget

for 2012 by $200 million to an estimated $1.5 billion, allocated almost

evenly between coal and natural gas, with much of the planned coal

spending earmarked for continued development of the new BMX

mine, an extension of its Bailey mine, in Greene County, Pa.

In the final three months of last year, CONSOL produced 15.3

million tons of coal and is forecasting output of 15.5-15.9 million

tons in the first quarter of 2012. The Pittsburgh-based company

blamed declining natural gas prices for its decision to pare back

spending this year from a prior projection of $1.7 billion. Even

with the cutback, however, the 2012 capex would surpass last

year’s total of $1.4 billion.

CONSOL continues to see burgeoning export opportunities into

Asia, particularly for metallurgical-quality coal. J. Brett Harvey, CON-

SOL chairman and CEO, told analysts during a January 26 fourth

quarter earnings call his company is “becoming a very strong swing


B Y L U K E P O P O V I C H

What Were They Thinkin’?

D A T E L I N E W A S H I N G T O N

You may not find an American Idol in the televised

GOP debates. But they, together with the onslaught of

primaries and caucuses, are useful not only for seeing

where the presidential candidates stand on energy

and environmental issues, but also for inklings into

public opinion on these issues, too.

And so far what we’ve learned is that energy and

environmental issues haven’t stirred much interest among the candidates

or GOP primary voters. Obviously the economy trumps all other concerns, let

alone questions about an endangered fish. Besides, Republican candidates

are appealing to their base, not to independents much less liberal

Democrats, who may feel more strongly about Lake Erie fish.

That’s why to learn more about voter attitudes, nothing beats opinion

polls that drill down for responses to specific issues. Several recent polls

offered some interesting and maybe surprising results regarding how

Americans view jobs, energy and the environment. None were on coal min-

ing per se, but their findings may interest you.

Several days after President Obama touted increased oil and gas pro-

duction in his State of the Union speech, 69% of respondents in a survey of

more than 1,000 adult Americans said they agreed with him. Only a fifth

did not. A clear majority of both Democrats and independents joined

Republicans in supporting greater energy production on public lands.

Would Americans want to “significantly expand oil and gas produc-

tion” on federal lands and coastlines if this were proposed by an oil

company executive? Maybe not; the messenger can sometimes be the

message. And for all of his problems, the president remains fairly like-

able. Yet in the same poll, 64% favored construction of the Keystone XL

pipeline—to strengthen U.S. energy independence from Mideast oil, they

said—despite the perceived environmental risks and the absence of

presidential support. The president has not approved this project, even

though relatively few (22%) oppose it. What’s more, a greater percent-

age of respondents (42%) believe growth is more likely to be restored by

cutting regulation, taxes and spending than with the palliatives the

president offered (35%).

Who are these Americans who prize jobs and energy security over

environmental risks? Surprisingly, they include a majority of Democrats,

a majority of urban dwellers and even a majority of young people—the

composite profile of likely environmentalists. Amazing how 25% youth

unemployment and a four-year economic slump concentrates the mind.

Another poll last month, this one in six western states, offered still more

surprises, though less pleasing ones. This Colorado College survey, using

pollsters well-known to the NMA, found 65% identified themselves as “con-

servationists.” The term was not defined but is not meaningless, either, since

more than 60% of respondents in Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, Utah, Colorado

and New Mexico favored the EPA’s tougher standards to control power plant

emissions, and clear majorities said the loss of fish and wildlife habitat were

serious to very serious concerns. A very high 85% believe federal parks and

wilderness areas are essential parts of their state’s economy. So while they

didn’t call themselves “environmentalists,” these “conservationists”—from

very resource-intensive states friendly to mining—were certainly not indiffer-

ent to the natural environment.

In fact, when asked what energy source they would like to see encour-

aged, their answer was—not coal. They didn’t mention coal any more than

the president did in his speech. Actually, solar power, followed by other

renewable fuels, was the big winner in these states. Except in the big coal

states of Montana and Wyoming—where wind power was the favorite, out-

ranking solar. Wyoming? Yup.

A majority in New Mexico and Montana even favored retaining or

strengthening their renewable energy standards for power plants.

Make of this what you will. As the NMA sees it, the results show a public

still concerned about jobs and the economy but not well informed about the

options for improving either one.

Popovich is a spokesperson for the National Mining Association, the

industry’s trade group based in Washington, D.C.

“Wyoming? Yup.

“



supplier to Asia.” CONSOL always has been a “very strong supplier to

the Atlantic markets,” he said. “The fastest growing commodity

worldwide is coal, so that gives us a very strong leg up. Being the low-

cost producer, we can distribute this cost at very high margins from

our well-capitalized position in the United States.”

As he looked ahead to the remainder of 2012, William J. Lyons,

CEO, principal accounting officer and executive vice president,

CONSOL, said coal demand expectations are somewhat murky.

Nevertheless, CONSOL is roughly about 90% contracted for the

year. “That 6 million tons that is unsold—about 40% of that is

tons that we will sell on a quarterly basis into Asia,” he said.

BMX is targeted to begin producing at the rate of 5 million

tons a year in the first quarter of 2014. Of the $205 million CON-

SOL has budgeted for mine upgrades this year, much of that is

expected to be spent on BMX. The BMX expansion project has a

total price tag of about $500 million.

Lyons said the good thing about BMX is that the mine “can be

whatever we want it to be to go to the highest market possible. It

can be 100% steam coal” if needed for the domestic market. Or,

“it could go to export as a great thermal coal, or it can be accepted

around the world as a high-vol crossover” coal.

Potential markets for BMX, in Northern Appalachia, include Asian

mills, European generators, Brazilian mills and domestic generators.

Kinder Morgan, Arch Coal to Further Expand Coal Terminal NetworkKinder Morgan Energy Partners announced plans to invest approxi-

mately $140 million to further expand its coal handling facilities along

the Gulf Coast. Concurrently, Arch Coal has signed a long-term

throughput agreement with KMP that will help support the expansion

of these export facilities. Also, Arch and KMP are in final discussions

to include, in the throughput agreement, port space for coal ship-

ments at KMP-owned facilities on the East Coast.

Upon completion of the proposed terminal upgrades and subject to

certain rail service agreements, Arch will ship coal at guaranteed mini-

mum volume levels through KMP-owned terminals. The expansion of

KMP’s export facilities along the Gulf Coast and East Coast will provide

incremental port capacity for Arch’s growing seaborne coal volumes.

“The demand for export coal continues to grow and we are

pleased to offer Arch and other customers options in various markets

through our multi-location terminal network,” said Jeff Armstrong,

president, Kinder Morgan Terminals. “We are also extending existing

long-term coal agreements with Arch at our upriver terminals [Cora,

Cahokia and Kellogg] in Illinois.”

“This strategic partnership with Kinder Morgan, a company with a

proven track record of running successful terminal operations, will

allow Arch to significantly increase our participation in the global coal

market,” said John W. Eaves, president and COO, Arch Coal. “This dedi-

cated capacity directly underpins our long-term strategy to grow Arch’s

coal exports by fourfold in the next decade, and is consistent with our

view that a global coal supply shortfall will persist over that time frame.”

Specific to the expansions on the Gulf Coast, KMP will install a new

shiploader and a railcar loop track to handle three 135-car unit trains at

its Deepwater terminal in Houston. Following completion of the pro-

ject, the Deepwater terminal will have throughput capacity of 10 mil-

lion tons of coal per year. The projects are expected to be completed

during the second quarter of 2014.

KMP’s Deepwater and East Coast facilities offer dual rail access

from Class 1 railroads, while International Marine Terminal (IMT) pro-

vides barge access to the inland waterway system. The Deepwater ter-

minal will be capable of handling panamax- and post panamax-size

vessels, while one East Coast terminal and IMT will be capable of han-

dling cape-size vessels. These multiple transportation options will

allow Arch to unlock incremental value for its domestic coal produc-

tion and coal reserves over the next 10 years.

Judge Finds Cordero Rojo Discriminated Against EmployeeAn administrative law judge (ALJ) with the Federal Mine Safety and

Health Review Commission has ordered Cordero Mining of Gillette,

Wyo., to pay a $40,000 civil penalty as well as reinstate an employee to

her former position, provide compensation for lost wages and remove

personnel files referencing the unlawful discharge.


C A L E N D A R O F E V E N T S

March 19-22, 2012 114th National Western Mining Conference & Exhibition—will be

held at the Westin Tabor Center in Denver, Colo. Contact: Colorado Mining Association

(Tel: 303-575-9199; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.colorado-

mining.org).

April 16-21, 2012 7th Annual Coal Fair—will be held in at the Washington County

Fairgrounds in Abingdon, Va. Contact: CEDAR of Virginia (Web: www.cedarva.com).

May 1-3, 2012 Coal Prep 2012—will be held at the Lexington Convention Center in

Lexington, Ky. Contact: Penton Business Media (Tel: 800-927-5007; Fax: 508-759-

4552; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.coalprepshow.com).

May 15-17, 2012 14th Annual Electric Power—will be held at the Baltimore Convention

Center in Baltimore, Md. Contact: The TradeFair Group (Tel: 832-242-1969; E-mail:

[email protected]; Web: www.electricpowerexpo.com).

May 30-31, 2012 AIMS 2012 7th International Symposium: Rockbolting and Rock

Mechanics in Mining—will be held in Aachen, Germany. Contact: Mirjam Rosenkranz,

RWTH Aachen University-Institute of Mining Engineering (Tel: 49-(0)241-80 95673;

Fax: 49-(0)241-80 92272; E-mail: [email protected]; Web:

www.aims.rwth-aachen.de).

May 30-June 1, 2012 Western Mining Electrical Association Bi-annual Meeting—will

be held at the Harrah’s in Reno, Nev. Contact: WMEA (Web: www.wmea.net).

July 24-26, 2012 31st International Conference on Ground Control in Mining—will be

held at the Lakeview Golf & Spa Resort in Morgantown, W.Va. Contact: Karen Centofanti

(Tel: 304-293-3901; E-mail: [email protected]) or Karla Vaughan (Tel:

304-293-3886; E-mail: [email protected]); Web: icgcm.conferencea-

cademy.com.

August 22-23, 2012 2nd Underground Coal Gasification Network Workshop—will be

held in Banff, Alberta, Canada. Contact: Debo Adams, IEA Clean Coal Center (Tel: 44

(0)20 8246 5268; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.UCG.coalconfer-

ences.org).

September 5-6, 2012 MEMSA Annual Technical Symposium—will be held in Clearwater,

Fla. Contact: Mining Electrical Maintenance Association (Web: www.miningelectri-

cal.org).

September 24-26, 2012 MINExpo—will be held at the Las Vegas Convention Center

in Las Vegas, Nev. Contact: Hall-Erickson Inc. (Tel: 866-717-6463; E-mail: minex-

[email protected]; Web: www.minexpo.com).

November 14-16, 2012 Western Mining Electrical Association Bi-annual Meeting—

will be held at El Tropicano Hotel in San Antonio, Texas. Contact: WMEA (Web:

www.wmea.net).



http://www.cedarva.com


http://www.coalprepshow.com


http://www.electricpowerexpo.com


http://www.aims.rwth-aachen.de

http://www.wmea.net




http://www.ucg.coalconferences.org

http://www.minexpo.com

http://www.wmea.net


http://www.coloradomining.org

http://www.coloradomining.org

http://icgcm.conferenceacademy.com

http://icgcm.conferenceacademy.com

http://www.miningelectrical.org

http://www.miningelectrical.org



http://www.ucg.coalconferences.org

On May 4, 2010, Cindy L. Clapp filed a complaint with the Mine

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) against Cordero, alleging

the coal mining company had terminated her employment at

Cordero mine in Campbell County in retaliation for her repeated

safety complaints. Clapp claimed the management’s lack of concern

over safety complaints raised by mine workers and her unlawful dis-

charge had a chilling effect on the willingness of other miners to

raise safety issues at the mine.

MSHA sought a finding from the commission that Cordero Mining

had unlawfully discriminated against an employee in violation of

Section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

ALJ Thomas P. McCarthy concluded that Clapp, a shovel operator

with 28 years of experience as a miner, engaged in protected activity

under the Mine Act, and Cordero took adverse action against her in

retaliation for her complaints.

In the December 5, 2011, decision, the administrative law judge

ordered Cordero to cease and desist from discharging or otherwise

discriminating against Clapp or any other miner because she or he

engage in protected activity, and from interfering with miners who

exercise the rights guaranteed by the Mine Act. Additionally, he

ordered the company to take “affirmative action necessary to effectu-

ate the policies of the Mine Act” within 14 days of the order and post a

copy of the legal decision. The $40,000 penalty is twice the amount

originally sought by the Labor Department.

Cordero has appealed McCarthy’s decision to the review commis-

sion and requested it stay the enforcement of the order during the

appeal.

Triad Mining Pays Big Penalty, Must Restore StreamsThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department

of Justice announced Triad Mining, which operates 31 surface

mines in Appalachia and Indiana, will pay a $810,171 penalty and

restore affected waterways for failing to obtain the required Clean

Water Act (CWA) permit for stream impacts caused by its surface

mining operation in Indiana. Since 2002, Triad’s mining operation

has resulted in the unpermitted excavation and filling of more

than 53,000 ft of streams that flow into the White River, according

to the EPA.

Triad, a subsidiary of James River Coal Co., obtained the

required Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act permits from

the state of Indiana for its mining operations, but never obtained

the required CWA permit for the site, despite the fact that its surface

mining operation involved excavating coal seams located directly

below stream beds, according to the EPA.

On March 24, 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a cease

and desist order requiring Triad to stop its unauthorized stream-filling

activities. Triad continued its mining practices until the Corps sent a

second order June 24, 2009, which Triad complied with. Since the sec-

ond order was issued, Triad has continued mining, but has avoided

additional impacts to streams.

Under the settlement, Triad must restore 34,906 linear ft of

streams and enhance 4,330 linear ft of stream bed to address and

mitigate impacts to stream beds caused by its mining activities.

Triad will also create and maintain 66 acres of forested buffer areas

and nine acres of forested wetland to protect the restored streams.

The proposed settlement, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, is subject to a 30-day comment period

and final court approval.



Norfolk Southern has loaded the largest volume cargo in

the history of its Pier 6 coal transloading facility at Lamberts

Point in Norfolk.

On January 12, 2012, Norfolk Southern finished loading

159,941.45 net tons (145,097.931 metric tons) of metallurgi-

cal coal into the M/V Cape Dover, destined for China. The

coal was shipped by Xcoal Energy & Resources in conjunc-

tion with CONSOL Energy, from mining operations in

Virginia, in 1,561 railroad coal cars. T. Parker Host was the

ship agent/broker.

Norfolk Southern employees loaded the 951-foot vessel in

fewer than 48 hours in order to accommodate a tight sched-

ule for the receiver. “This is the kind of capacity and service

that makes Pier 6 the preeminent coal transloading facility on

the East Coast,” said Mark H. Bower, NS group vice president,

export, metallurgical and industrial coal marketing.

“Worldwide demand for U.S. coal for utilities and coke plants

continues to grow, and the railroad is the reliable and safe

link that, with our coal production and sales partners, brings

that energy to market around the globe.”

The loading of the M/V Cape Dover eclipsed the former

record of 157,645 net tons for the M/V Irongate in 1998 as

well as the 155,522 net tons into the M/V Cape Provence in

December 2010.

Norfolk Southern has been transferring coal and coke

from railroad cars into ocean-going export and domestic

vessels in the Lamberts Point area since 1884, when it

opened Pier 1. In the first half of the 1900s, new Piers 2-5

featured improvements in speed and capacity and even

loaded coal into a number of famous vessels, such as those

used in Admiral Byrd’s 1933 Antarctica expedition.

Pier 6 opened for business in 1962 as the hemisphere’s

largest, fastest and most efficient transloading facility. In

1999, Pier 6 dumped its billionth ton of coal and became the

only facility in the world to have reached that milestone.

Pier 6 Handles Largest Coal

Loading in its 50-Year History


For many years Alabama has appeared to the

outside world (everywhere not within the

Alabama borders) as a self-contained idealis-

tic economy. Its steel industry and power

plants were furnished coal by its own nearby

coal mines, and the coal was hauled from

Alabama mines to the plants by a small group

of barge and railroad companies. This eco-

nomic Eden began to change rather slowly in

the early 1990s, when Peabody Coal found it

necessary to blend Colombian coal with

Galatia coal at McDuffie Terminal to meet

environmental requirements for its coal cus-

tomer Gulf Power. No one would have

guessed it then, but this was to be the crack

in the door that would lead to more drastic

changes in the following years. In a sense

Alabama has become a microcosm of sys-

temic changes occurring all across the

United States.

Alabama Power has a coal-fired power

plant on each of four major waterways in

the state: the Green County plant is locat-

ed on the Black Warrior River, the Miller

plant is located on Locust Fork, the Barry

plant is located on the Mobile River, and

the Gorgas plant is located on Mulberry

Fork. Alabama Electric Cooperative owns

the Lowman plant on the Tombigbee

River. With the exception of Gorgas, which

is connected to its own mine, all were orig-

inally equipped with their own coal termi-

nal to receive coal from nearby Alabama

mines. Under constant environmental

pressure many of the original coal trans-

portation systems have experienced obso-

lescence or radical change.

The Miller plant no longer takes barge

coal from Alabama mines; in fact it no longer

has a barge dock. It strictly takes rail coal

from the Powder River Basin (PRB). The

Barry plant takes imported coal from

Colombia, which is transferred from ship to

barge at McDuffie Terminal, then delivered

by barge to the plant. One cannot predict

when or if the Barry plant will ever return to

locally-produced coal, but it seems reason-

ably certain that the Miller plant will not

abandon its expensive capital commitment

to PRB coal.

Other factors have produced temporary

or even permanent change in the transporta-

tion and coal production system. Barge deliv-

eries of coal have been markedly curtailed as

natural gas prices have been so low that utili-

ties have purchased gas instead of coal.

Fortunately much of the lost utility coal busi-

ness has been replaced by barge shipments

of export coal to McDuffie Terminal. The pri-

mary stimulus for this was the 2011 torrential

rains in the coking coal production region of

Australia, so it is difficult to predict how long

the spot coal demand for Alabama coal will

last. Coal imports at McDuffie Terminal have

been sharply reduced by the effect of lower

gas prices. Whereas McDuffie recently

imported about 12 million tons per year, it

now expects imports in 2012 to be about 3

million tons.


t r a n s p o rt t i p s

Alabama Coal Transportation—A System in Change

B Y D A V I D G A M B R E L

Figure 1: Coal Terminals on the Inland Waterways of Alabama

Name Mile Town Railway Depth Berth Storage Capacity, Purpose Notes

Short Tons

Black WarriorAlabama Power, Greene Co. Plant 227.7 R Forkland BNSF 10’-12’ 2,600’ 1,000,000 Receipt of Coal

for plantPowell Sales 338.5 L Tuscaloosa None 9’ 200’ 40,000 Shipment of coalJim Walter Resources 534.0 L Brookwood None 10’ 200’ 20,000 Shipment of coal Exports met coal.Kellerman Dock (Drummond 355.0 L Brookwood None 10’ 200’ 500,000 Shipment of coalDrummond Big Soal Creek Dock 372.0 R Oak Grove None 10’-12’ 680’ 200,000 Shipment of coal Exports met coal.

Locust ForkPort Birmingham 397.4 L Port Birmingham Birmingham 10’ 800’ 200,000 Shipment of coal Owned by Watco.

TerminalLiberty Stevedoring 398.6 R Port Birmingham None 15’ 400’ 50,000 Shipment of coal Inactive.Liberty Stevedoring 398.8 R Port Birmingham None 15’ 400’ 150,000 Shipment of coal Inactive.Birmingham Marine Terminal 399.2 R Port Birmingham None 10’ 188’ 15,000 Shipment of coal Owned by Parker Towing.Alabama Power, Miller Plant 405.6 L Porter CSXT, BNSF 14’ 1,800’ 600,000 Receipt of coal Strictly takes PRB coal

for plant now. No longer have dock.

Mobile RiverAlabama Power, Barry Plant 30.5 R Bucks None 13’ 2,000’ 1,300,000 Receipt of coal for plant Takes import coal.

Mulberry ForkAlabama Power, Gorgas Plant 397.8 R Gorgas Captive to mine 12’ 420’ 1,000,000 Shipmwnt of coal Company mine.Alabama State Docks 416.5 R Cordova BSNF 9’-12’ 200’ 150,000 Shipment of coal No longer handles coal,

general cargo only.

Tennessee RiverPort of Guntersville Bulk Dock 0.5 L Guntersville CSX 10’ 240’ ? Receipt/shipment of coalACT Port of Gunterstille Dump 0.6 L Guntersville None 12’ 195’ ? Receipt/shipment of coalTVA Colbert Plant 245.3 L Pride None 15’ 4,130’ 800,000 Receipt of coal for plantBlack Eagle Minerals Pride Transloader 247.5 L Pride NS 22’ 1,250’ 300,000 Receipt of coalPort of Florence 256.6 R Florence CSX 16’ 500’ ? Shipment of coalMonsanto Coal Dock 302.0 L Decatur NS 12’ 1,160’ 50,000 Receipt of coal for plantTVA Widows Creek 407.2 R Stevenson CSX 10’ 1,650’ 1,000,000 Receipt of coal for plant

Tombigbee RiverRiver City Industries 214.8 Demopolis none 12’ 600’ 14 acres Receipt of coalAlabama Electric Coopertive 89.5 R Leroy NS 10’ 780’ 500,000 Recept of coal for plant

Tennessee-Tombigbee WaterwayPickens County Port 308 Pickensville None Shipment of coal Owned by Parker Towing.


In the midst of confusing worldwide coal

demand signals McDuffie finds itself in the

process of increasing throughput. It has

ordered a new shiploader which will be

installed later this year. Also within the termi-

nal boundaries Jim Walter Resources pur-

chased a privately-owned coal terminal from

Transtar’s Warrior & Gulf for $35 million, and

intends to convert it from an iron ore import-

ing terminal to a coal exporting terminal for

its own production. These are but a few of the

capital expansions under way.

WATCO, a Kansas-based corporate own-

er of Class II and III railroads, recently pur-

chased the Birmingham Southern Railway,

and will operate it as the Birmingham

Terminal Railway. The Birmingham

Southern (BSRR) had operated under vari-

ous names for decades, but was always the

railroad with the primary responsibility for

hauling coking coal to U.S. Steel’s Fairfield,

Ala., plant. Currently, it hauls coal from

Cliffs’ Oak Grove mine about 25 miles

southwest of Birmingham. However, the rail

system goes to Port Birmingham on the

Black Warrior River, and is capable of taking

coal that has been barged to the Port

Birmingham terminal.

The 75-mile BSRR serves Alabama’s

largest steel-making and manufacturing

region, and provides service to the Port of

Birmingham and a rail-to-barge/barge-to-

rail facility on the Black Warrior River. The

short line interchanges with BNSF Railway

Co., CSX Transportation and Norfolk

Southern Railway.

“This acquisition fits nicely with our con-

tinued business expansion in Alabama,” said

Watco Chief Commercial Officer Ed

McKechnie. “Birmingham Terminal will join

our Alabama Warrior Railway, Autauga

Northern Railroad and the Alabama

Southern Railroad that operate in Alabama.

Combined, these four railroads will move

more than 100,000 rail cars a year.” All but

Autauga Northern are involved in coal

haulage.

Watco currently owns 23 short lines in

the United States. It also provides

transloading, warehousing, intermodal

and other services. This includes the ter-

minal at Port Birmingham, which is capa-

ble of unloading barges to unit trains and

vice versa.

The Birmingham Southern Railroad Co.

was organized on March 3, 1899. The line

was originally built between 1878 from

Birmingham to Pratt City, Ala., to haul coal to

the steel mills in Birmingham. This purchase

by Watco represents the first time in 113

years that the railroad was not controlled by

U.S. Steel or one of its subsidiaries.

It is nearly impossible to chronicle all of the

ownership changes in coal terminals on the

inland waterways, but Figure 1 is a chart of

current terminals as recently reviewed with

Alabama River veteran Parker Towing. Several

of the Locust Fork terminals are known to be

inactive, and one of the Mulberry Fork termi-

nals no longer handles coal. Beyond that, we

suspect that several other terminals are inac-

tive due to declining Alabama production and

rising coal imports from other states.

One is reminded that terminals and power

plants on the Tennessee River, while located

within the northern counties of Alabama, are

physically isolated from the other terminals

and power plants within the state except for a

lengthy trip via the Tennessee-Tombigbee

Waterway, a route rarely if ever used for coal

haulage from Alabama mines.

Dave Gambrel is a consultant to the coal

mining and transportation business. He may

be reached at [email protected].

t r a n s p o r t t i p s c o n t i n u e d




Even though the ownership in some cas-

es may have changed, the fleet of U.S.

longwalls remained intact and two new

longwall mines, Tunnel Ridge and Sugar

Camp, were added to the list this year.

The total number of longwall mines,

according to Coal Age’s annual U.S. long-

wall census now stands at 43 and, with

five mines operating two faces, the total

number of faces is 48. Two of the mines

are operating in soft rock in Wyoming.

The rest are cutting coal using the most

productive underground technique,

longwall mining.

The other major change that readers

will note on the census is the emergence

of the Caterpillar brand name. Last year,

Caterpillar entered the underground coal

business in a big way when it acquired

Bucyrus. Seeing the Cat brand in the

longwall census may seem odd, but no

more peculiar than when the Bucyrus

name first appeared after the company

acquired Deutsche Bergbau Technik

(DBT). As far as equipment, this was a

change in name only. The industry is still

waiting to see which operator will be the

first to purchase major pieces of yellow

longwall equipment.

CONSOL Energy remains the leading

U.S. longwall producer with 11 faces. Arch

Coal and Murray Energy operate five long-

wall mines. Last year, Alpha Natural

Resources acquired Massey Energy and

the Revolution longwall mine in West

Virginia. Likewise, Walter Energy acquired

the North River mine in Alabama from

Chevron Mining. Alpha Natural Resources

and Walter Energy each have one mine

operating two longwall faces. Both com-

panies operate three longwall mines and

four longwall faces.

Alliance Resource Partners commis-

sioned the Tunnel Ridge longwall mine

in West Virginia. Tunnel Ridge is the

company’s second longwall. It also oper-

ates the Mountain View mine in West

Virginia.

Cline Resources reorganized its Illinois

Basin coal mines and ancillary assets as

Foresight Energy. Foresight Energy owns

Mach Mining, which operates the most

productive longwall mine in the U.S.

MClass Mining operates the Sugar Camp

mine, which has been designed to accom-

modate four longwalls. The mine began

operating its first longwall last year.

With 13 faces, West Virginia remains the

longwall leader, followed by Pennsylvania

(7), Alabama (6), and Utah (5).

Looking at the numbers, the average

U.S. longwall mine has a cutting height of

94 inches, a panel width (or face length) of

1,086 ft, and a panel length of 10,321 ft.

Last year, those numbers were 88 inches,

1,055 ft and 10,724 ft respectively. A total

of 17 longwalls operate in the Pittsburgh

No. 8 seam. The maximum overburden on

average reaches 1,206 ft. Except for a few

mines in Utah, most are developed with 3-

entry gates. Using a 1,734-hp double-

drum, ranging-arm shearer, they take a

38-inch cut. The average yield setting on

the shield is 988 tons. Most (41 faces) are

high voltage (4,160 volts).

As far as extremes, the deepest longwall

mine is the West Ridge mine in Utah,

operating at a depth of 3,000 ft. CONSOL

Energy’s Bailey Enlow Fork Complex oper-

ates the longest faces, four 1,500-ft faces.

At 21,500 ft, Signal Peak Energy’s Bull

Mountain mine has the longest panel.

Arch Coal’s West Elk and SUFCO mines

are operating 2,805-hp shearers.

The Year in Review

During October, Blue Mountain Energy’s

Deserado mine was recognized by the

Colorado Mining Association (CMA) for

achieving a historic safety milestone,

completing 365 days without a lost time

accident. During the one-year period, an


u. s . l o n g wa l l c e n s u s

Longwall Population Grows Amid

Further M&A Activity

B Y S T E V E F I S C O R , E D I T O R - I N - C H I E F

Two new installations and a new supplier, Caterpillar, highlight the changing landscape

of longwall mining

Foresight Energy’s Sugar Camp mine began longwall production and could become a major longwall complex

in the Illinois Basin.


average of 167 miners worked with care

over 300,000 hours producing more than

2.5 million raw tons of coal without a sin-

gle reported lost time accident. This is

only the second time in the mine’s 29-

year history that workers completed 365

days with no lost time injuries, the last

during the years 2002-2003.

At a celebration held during October 24,

2011, CMA President Stuart Sanderson

read a proclamation commending the

company, its management and employees

for the successful creation of a culture of

mine safety. And the company sweetened

the pot with bonuses including $365 for

working an entire year injury free. “Our

safety record begins with the support of

top management, including the board of

directors, and works its way through our

whole team of miners,” said Al Hillard,

mine manager, Deserado mine. “We have

great people that not only look out for

themselves, but for the other guy as well.”

Peabody Energy operates only one U.S.

longwall, the Twentymile mine, but it’s one

of the best. The company recently

announced the mine received a 40-million-

ton long-term coal supply agreement for a

planned extension. The Twentymile exten-

sion is being developed to supply coal to

power plants, industrial and export cus-

tomers, including a 16-year agreement with

the nearby Hayden Generating Station.

The project involves developing the

new Twentymile Sage Creek portal in the

existing Wadge coal seam and moving

the longwall. The new portal will access

an additional 105 million ton northern

reserve block of high-Btu, low-sulfur

coal. Permits are in place for develop-

ment of the longwall panel, with devel-

opment work expected to begin in May

2012. Longwall production is anticipated

in the second half of 2015. The capital

investment for the extension is expected

to total approximately $200 million.

CONSOL continues permitting and

development of its planned Bailey mine

expansion (BMX) longwall mine in

Western Pennsylvania. This mine would

add a fifth longwall to the Bailey/Enlow

Fork complex, which is currently the

largest underground complex in the

United States. A single development sec-

tion is presently driving main entries and

full production is expected to be 5 mil-

lion tons per year beginning in late 2013.

Signal Peak Energy had a rough year.

After starting its second longwall panel at

the Bull Mountain mine in Montana, the

mine experienced several roof falls that

interrupted production. The mine was

then idled in December due to high car-

bon monoxide (CO) concentrations and

had to declare force majeure. The com-

pany lifted the force majeure in January

and is hoping for a better 2012. When it

reaches full capacity, the mine, one of

America’s newest longwall installations,

is expected to produce as much as 12.5

million tons per year.

Cliffs Natural Resources reported high

production volumes from America’s only

plow longwall at the Pinnacle mine in

West Virginia. Cliffs brought the Pinnacle

mine back online during October. It had

suspended operations in May when the

mine noticed elevated CO levels. The

company’s Oak Grove mine was com-

pleting repairs to surface structure that

was damaged by the deadly tornadoes

that struck Alabama early last year.

Arch Coal’s Canyon Fuel subsidiary

announced last fall it would scale back

production at the Dugout Canyon mine

near Wellington, Utah, in response to

continuing weakness in coal demand in

the region. The company will suspend

longwall operations at the end of the cur-

rent panel, currently planned for the first

half of 2012. Coal sales from Dugout

Canyon totaled 2.3 million tons in 2010.

Arch Coal also brought the Mountain

Laurel longwall back online. It had been

idled due to geologic challenges. During

2011, Arch Coal acquired ICG and its plans

to develop the Tygart River longwall mine

in West Virginia. It recently said it was

accelerating Tygart Valley’s longwall start-

up by six months to mid-2013.

Looking toward the future, if Foresight

Energy’s plans come to fruition, the

industry could see at least two more

longwalls come online. At least one addi-

tional longwall could be installed at the

company’s Sugar Camp mine. The com-

pany’s Patton Mining division is also

opening the Hilsboro mine which will

operate at least one longwall. The num-

ber of U.S. longwalls could once again

climb comfortably above 50 by 2013.

u . s . l o n g w a l l c e n s u s c o n t i n u e d


Table 1—Longwall Installations, by Parent Company (2011-2012).

Company Ala. Colo. Ill. Mont. N.M. Ohio Pa. Utah Va. W.Va. Wyo. Total

Alliance Resource Partners 2 2

Alpha Natural Resources 3 1 4

AmCoal 2 2

American Energy 1 1

Arch Coal 1 3 1 5

BHP Billiton 1 1

Blue Mountain Energy 1 1

Bowie Resources Ltd. 1 1

Cliffs Natural Resources 1 1 2

CONSOL Energy 4 1 6 11

Drummond 1 1

Energy West 1 1

FMC Corp. 1 1

Foresight Energy 2 2

Ohio Valley Coal 1 1

Oxbow Mining 1 1

Pacific Minerals 1 1

Patriot Coal 2 2

Peabody Energy 1 1

Signal Peak Energy 1 1

Solvay Chemicals 1 1

UtahAmerican Energy Inc. 1 1

Walter Energy 4 4

Total 6 5 4 1 1 2 7 5 1 13 3 48




ALAB

AMA

(6)

Blue

Cre

ek N

o. 4

Blue

Cre

ek/

2,60

0 -

Joy

7LS-

1DUl

trat

rac

Joy

JWR

1,00

0/JW

R Tr

i-

Wal

ter E

nerg

yM

ary

Lee

4585

850

4,90

01,

600

436

DDR

1,65

020

001,

300

42 T

IB 3

x700

305

1,30

0 m

m, 4

20 fp

mJW

RTe

ch2,

300

Blue

Cre

ek N

o. 7

Blue

Cre

ek/

Joy

7LS-

1DUl

trat

rac

Cat

JWR

1,00

0/JW

RTr

i-

Wal

ter E

nerg

yM

ary

Lee

5369

850

8,80

01,

600

436

DDR

1,65

020

001,

243

42 T

IB 3

x1,0

0030

51,

300

mm

, 420

fpm

JWR

Tech

4,16

0

Blue

Cre

ek/

Joy

7LS-

1DUl

trat

rac

Joy

JWR

1,00

0/JW

RTr

i-

Mar

y Le

e53

8085

012

,600

1,60

04

36DD

R 1,

650

2000

1300

42 T

IB 3

x1,0

0030

51,

300

mm

, 420

fpm

JWR

Tech

4,16

0

Nort

h Ri

ver

No. 1

8,50

0-40

0-Jo

y 7L

S1A

Ultr

atra

cCa

tLo

ngw

all A

ssoc

iate

s89

0/Lo

ngw

all A

ssoc

iate

sLo

ngw

all

Serv

ice

Wal

ter E

nerg

yPr

att

6570

1,04

012

,000

600

336

DDR

1,6

2520

0081

342

TIB

3x1

,000

350

1,29

4 m

m, 4

90 fp

mAs

soci

ates

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Oak

Grov

e60

-Jo

y 7L

S1Ul

trat

rac

Joy

Long

wal

l Ass

ocia

tes

1,00

0/Jo

y M

inin

g M

achi

nery

Long

wal

lLi

ne

Cliff

s Re

sour

ces

Blue

Cre

ek72

7294

48,

000

1,00

03

42DD

R 1,

250

2000

875

42 T

IB 3

x800

300

1,29

4 m

m, 4

90 fp

mAs

soci

ates

Pow

er4,

160

Shoa

l Cre

ekM

ary

Lee/

84-

84-

Joy

7LS5

Ultr

atra

cJo

yCa

terp

illar

1,34

2/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

Drum

mon

d Co

. Inc

.Bl

ue C

reek

132

132

1,00

011

,000

1,15

03

42DD

R 2,

091

2000

955

48 T

IB 3

x1,0

0029

01,

424

mm

, 385

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

COLO

RADO

(5)

Bow

ie M

ines

No.

2 (i

dle)

144-

108-

1,10

0-Ca

t EL2

000

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar1,

000/

Cate

rpill

arSe

rvic

e

Bow

ie R

esou

rces

B24

013

284

57,

000

1,70

03

36DD

R 1,

690

Dyna

trac

813

34 T

IB 2

x600

280

1,00

0 m

m, 3

50 fp

mCa

tM

achi

ne2,

300

Dese

rado

84-

400-

Joy

4LS5

Ultr

atra

cJo

yJo

y M

inin

g M

achi

nery

860/

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

rySe

rvic

e

Blue

Mou

ntai

n En

ergy

B16

813

280

011

,000

900

332

DDR

1,24

920

0091

038

TIB

2x9

0045

01,

220

mm

, 410

fpm

Joy

Mac

hine

2,30

0

Elk

Cree

k10

8-50

0-Jo

y 7L

S3A

Jum

botr

acCa

tCa

terp

illar

988/

Cate

rpill

arSe

rvic

e

Oxbo

w M

inin

gD

180

132

805

6,80

02,

000

330

DDR

1,69

220

0081

342

TIB

3x8

0026

01,

388

mm

, 423

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

2,30

0

Twen

tym

ile12

,000

-1,

400-

Joy

7LS5

Jum

botr

acCa

tCa

terp

illar

1,18

8/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

Peab

ody

Ener

gyW

adge

108

108

1,00

015

,000

1,65

03

39.4

DDR

2,36

020

001,

327

42 T

IB 3

x1,2

5036

51,

588

mm

, 520

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Wes

t Elk

84-

96-

10,2

50-

600-

Cat E

L300

0Ju

mbo

trac

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar1,

342/

Cate

rpill

arSe

rvic

e

Arch

Coa

lE

216

156

1,08

016

,000

1,20

03

42DD

R 2,

805

1,27

148

TIB

3x1

,650

365

1,38

0 m

m, 4

64 fp

mCa

tM

achi

ne4,

160

ILLI

NOIS

(4)

Mac

h M

inin

gHe

rrin

74-

Joy

7LS2

AUl

trat

rac

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar1,

142/

Cate

rpill

arIn

term

ount

ain

Fore

sigh

t Ene

rgy

No. 6

7284

1,40

019

,000

500

342

DDR

2,00

020

001,

200

48 T

IB 3

x1,9

0037

11,

388

mm

, VFD

Cat

Elec

tric

al4,

160

New

Era

Herr

in65

-65

-Jo

y 7L

S1A

AEM

IAE

MI

AEM

I1,

000/

MEC

AmCo

alNo

. 670

701,

150

12,0

0065

03

34DD

R 1,

625

2010

1,00

048

TIB

3x1

,000

370

1,30

0 m

m, 4

75 fp

mM

ECM

CI4,

160

New

Fut

ure

Herr

in65

-65

-Jo

y 7L

S1A

AEM

ICa

tAE

MI

890/

MEC

AmCo

alNo

. 670

701,

150

6,00

035

03

32DD

R 1,

625

1500

817

42 T

IB 3

x1,0

0037

01,

024

mm

, 475

fpm

MEC

MCI

4,16

0

Suga

r Ca

mp

Herr

inJo

y 7L

S2A

Ultr

atra

cCa

tCa

terp

illar

1,14

2/Ca

terp

illar

Inte

rmou

ntai

n

Fore

sigh

t Ene

rgy

No. 6

7272

——

600

342

DDR

2,00

020

001,

200

48 T

IB 3

x1,9

0037

11,

388

mm

, VFD

Cat

Elec

tric

al4,

160

MON

TANA

(1)

Bull

Mou

ntai

n M

ine

Joy

7LS5

Jum

botr

acJo

yCa

terp

illar

1,24

2/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

Sign

al P

eak

Ener

gyM

amm

oth

120

120

1,25

021

,500

450

342

DDR

2,40

020

001,

170

48 T

IB 3

x1,6

5036

51,

388

mm

, 464

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Seam

Cutt

ing

Pane

lPa

nel

Over

-No

. of

Dept

hRo

of s

uppo

rtFa

ce c

onve

yor

Face

con

veyo

rVo

ltage

Min

ehe

ight

heig

htw

idth

leng

thbu

rden

gate

of c

utHa

ulag

eyi

eld

type

wid

th (m

m)/

Stag

eloa

der

type

Elec

tric

alto

Com

pany

(par

ent)

Seam

(inch

es)

(inch

es)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

entr

ies

(inch

es)

Shea

rer

syst

em(t

ons)

(str

and,

mot

ors)

spee

d (f

pm)

wid

th, s

peed

Crus

her

cont

rols

face




NEW

MEX

ICO

(1)

San

Juan

Sou

thFr

uitla

nd13

6-12

0-40

0-Jo

y 7L

S5Ul

trat

rac

Joy

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

ry1,

100/

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

rySe

rvic

e

BHP

Billi

ton

No. 8

200

156

1,00

012

,500

900

339

DDR

2,09

220

001,

160

50 T

IB 3

x1,1

5035

01,

350

mm

, 500

fpm

Joy

Mac

hine

4,16

0

OHIO

(2)

Cent

ury

Min

ePi

ttsb

urgh

62-

400-

Joy

7LS1

AAE

MI

MEC

AEM

I1,

000/

MEC

Amer

ican

Ene

rgy

Corp

.No

. 865

681,

350

10,0

0060

03

32DD

R 1,

625

2010

680

48 T

IB 3

x1,9

0037

01,

300

mm

, 475

fpm

MEC

MCI

4,16

0

Pow

hata

n No

. 6Pi

ttsb

urgh

Joy

7LS1

A AE

MI

MEC

AEM

I1,

000/

MEC

Ohio

Val

ley

Coal

No. 8

6268

1,50

09,

000

350

334

DDR

1,62

520

1068

048

TIB

3x1

,900

370

1,30

0 m

m, 4

75 fp

mM

ECM

CI4,

160

PENN

SYLV

ANIA

(7)

Baile

yPi

ttsb

urgh

62-

600-

Joy

7LS2

AJu

mbo

Tra

ckCa

tCa

terp

illar

/ PF5

988/

Cate

rpill

arLi

ne

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 872

931,

500

12,0

001,

000

342

DDR

1,68

020

0088

048

TIB

3x1

,900

365

1,18

8 m

m, 5

25 fp

mCa

tPo

wer

4,16

0

Pitt

sbur

gh62

-60

0-Ei

ckho

ff-3

00SL

Jum

bo T

rack

Joy

Cate

rpill

ar/ P

F698

8/Ca

terp

illar

Line

No. 8

7295

1,50

012

,000

1,00

03

42DD

R 1,

850

2000

1,00

548

TIB

3x1

,900

365

1,18

8 m

m, 5

25 fp

mCa

tPo

wer

4,16

0

Cum

berl

and

Pitt

sbur

gh78

-78

-1,

370-

6,80

0-60

0-Jo

y 7L

S2A

Jum

botr

acCa

tCa

terp

illar

988/

Cate

rpill

arSe

rvic

e

Alph

a Na

tura

l Res

ourc

esNo

. 884

841,

430

12,0

001,

200

342

DDR

1,66

620

001,

096

42 T

IB 3

x1,6

5036

51,

388

mm

, 420

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Emer

ald

No. 1

Pitt

sbur

gh72

-72

-1,

250-

10,0

00-

500-

Joy

7L1A

Jum

botr

acCa

tCa

terp

illar

988/

Cate

rpill

arSe

rvic

e

Alph

a Na

tura

l Res

ourc

esNo

. 884

841,

450

12,0

001,

000

342

DDR

1,66

620

001,

172

48 T

IB 2

x1,6

50, 1

x1,4

5036

51,

388

mm

, 420

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Pitt

sbur

gh72

-72

-50

0-Jo

y 7L

S2Ju

mbo

trac

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar98

8/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

No. 8

8484

1,45

012

,000

1,00

03

42DD

R 1,

666

2000

925

48 T

IB 3

x1,6

5036

51,

388

mm

, 420

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Enlo

w F

ork

Pitt

sbur

gh62

-60

0-Jo

y 7L

S2A

Jum

bo T

rack

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar/ P

F698

8/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 872

921,

500

12,0

001,

000

342

DDR

1,68

020

0088

2/89

348

TIB

3x1

,900

365

1,18

8 m

m, 5

25 fp

mCa

tM

achi

ne4,

160

Pitt

sbur

gh62

-60

0-Jo

y 7L

S2A

Jum

bo T

rack

Joy

Cate

rpill

ar/ P

F698

8/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

No. 8

7289

1,50

012

,000

1,00

03

42DD

R 1,

680

2000

1,00

548

TIB

3x1

,900

365

1,18

8 m

m, 5

25 fp

mCa

tM

achi

ne4,

160

UTAH

(5)

Deer

Cre

ekBl

ind

84-

1,60

0-Jo

y 7L

S2Ul

trat

rac

Joy

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

ry94

0/Jo

y M

inin

g M

achi

nery

Line

Ener

gy W

est M

inin

gCa

nyon

120

9675

06,

500

2,60

02

36DD

R 1,

451

2000

1,17

034

TIB

2x6

0025

71,

250

mm

, 320

fpm

Joy

Pow

er2,

300

Dugo

ut C

anyo

n72

-72

-3,

400-

400-

Joy

7LS2

Ul

trat

rac

Joy

Cate

rpill

ar1,

042/

Cate

rpill

arLi

ne P

ower

/

Arch

Coa

lGi

lson

144

132

890

8,00

02,

600

236

DDR

1,75

020

001,

100

42 T

IB 2

x1,2

5035

51,

188

mm

, 472

fpm

Cat

RAD

4,16

0

SUFC

O No

. 1Up

per

84-

96-

2,40

0-80

0-Ca

t EL3

000

Jum

botr

acCa

tCa

terp

illar

1,34

2/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

Arch

Coa

lHi

awat

ha21

615

61,

110

4,00

01,

800

342

DDR

2,80

51,

271

48 T

IB 3

x1,6

5037

41,

388

mm

, 464

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Skyl

ine

Low

er10

8-10

8-2,

500-

800-

Joy

7LS3

Jum

botr

acJo

yCa

terp

illar

1,34

2/Ca

terp

illar

Line

Arch

Coa

lO'

Conn

or A

240

156

850

6,00

01,

800

242

DDR

1,50

797

042

TIB

2x1

,200

354

1,38

8 m

m, 4

77 fp

mCa

tPo

wer

4,16

0

Wes

t Rid

geLo

wer

78-

78-

Joy

7LS2

Ultr

atra

cJo

yJo

y/LW

Ass

ocia

tes

890/

MEC

Line

Utah

Amer

ican

Ene

rgy

Sunn

ysid

e98

9085

03,

200

3,00

02

30DD

R 1,

534

2000

905

42 T

IB 2

x700

263

1,02

4 m

m, 3

20 fp

mM

ECPo

wer

4,16

0

VIRG

INIA

(1)

Buch

anan

Poca

hont

as60

-1,

400-

Joy

7LS1

DSu

per G

earR

ack

Joy

Joy/

LW A

ssoc

iate

s1,

000/

Long

wal

l Ass

ocia

tes

Line

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 376

7070

011

,500

2,00

04

42DD

R 1,

300

2000

1,02

442

TIB

3x8

0035

01,

294

mm

, 460

fpm

Joy

Pow

er4,

160

Seam

Cutt

ing

Pane

lPa

nel

Over

-No

. of

Dept

hRo

of s

uppo

rtFa

ce c

onve

yor

Face

con

veyo

rVo

ltage

Min

ehe

ight

heig

htw

idth

leng

thbu

rden

gate

of c

utHa

ulag

eyi

eld

type

wid

th (m

m)/

Stag

eloa

der

type

Elec

tric

alto

Com

pany

(par

ent)

Seam

(inch

es)

(inch

es)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

entr

ies

(inch

es)

Shea

rer

syst

em(t

ons)

(str

and,

mot

ors)

spee

d (f

pm)

wid

th, s

peed

Crus

her

cont

rols

face




WES

T VI

RGIN

IA (1

3)

Blac

ksvi

lle N

o. 2

Pitt

sbur

gh80

0-Jo

y 7L

S1D

Jum

bo G

earR

ack

Cat

LW A

ssoc

iate

s1,

000/

Trin

ityLi

ne

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 880

821,

100

12,0

001,

150

342

DDR

1620

Indi

rect

Driv

e84

042

TIB

3x8

0035

01,

200

mm

, 550

fpm

Cat

Pow

er4,

160

Fede

ral N

o. 2

Pitt

sbur

gh75

0-Jo

y 7L

S1A

Ultr

atra

cJo

yJo

y M

inin

g M

achi

nery

890/

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

ryLi

ne

Patr

iot C

oal

No. 8

9688

1,05

08,

500

1,40

03

36DD

R 1,

290

2000

1,00

542

TIB

3x7

0027

01,

220

mm

, 415

fpm

Jo

yPo

wer

2,30

0

Love

ridg

ePi

ttsb

urgh

800-

Joy

7LS2

Jum

bo G

earR

ack

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar/L

W A

ssoc

iate

s1,

000/

Cate

rpill

arLi

ne

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 898

941,

400

8,90

01,

250

342

DDR

1,68

0In

dire

ct D

rive

865

48 T

IB 3

x190

036

51,

188

mm

, 525

fpm

Cat

Pow

er4,

160

McE

lroy

Pitt

sbur

gh60

-50

0-Jo

y 7L

S1A

Supe

r Gea

rRac

kCa

tCa

terp

illar

/LW

Ass

ocia

tes

1,00

0/Ca

terp

illar

Line

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 865

841,

400

12,5

001,

100

342

DDR

1620

2000

882

48 T

IB 3

x1,9

0036

51,

188

mm

, 525

fpm

Cat

Pow

er4,

160

Pitt

sbur

gh60

-50

0-Jo

y 7L

S1A

Supe

r Gea

rRac

kCa

tCa

terp

illar

/LW

Ass

ocia

tes

1,00

0/Ca

terp

illar

Line

No. 8

6584

1,48

012

,500

1,10

03

42DD

R 16

2020

0089

348

TIB

3x1

,900

365

1,18

8 m

m, 5

25 fp

mCa

tPo

wer

4,16

0

Mou

ntai

n Vi

ew

Uppe

r78

-78

-6,

000-

600-

Joy

7LS1

Ultr

atra

cJo

yLo

ngw

all A

ssoc

iate

s95

0/Jo

y M

inin

g M

achi

nery

Long

wal

lLi

ne

Allia

nce

Reso

urce

Par

tner

sFr

eepo

rt10

810

885

08,

000

800

342

DDR

1,34

020

0081

538

TIB

2x7

0022

91,

200

mm

, 312

fpm

Asso

ciat

esPo

wer

2,30

0

Mou

ntai

neer

IIAl

ma

&3,

100-

300-

Joy

7LS2

AUl

trat

rac

Joy

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

ry1,

000/

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

rySe

rvic

e

Arch

Coa

lCe

dar G

rove

8484

1,00

05,

000

1,10

03

42DD

R 1,

666

2000

1,04

042

TIB

3x1

,000

337

1,20

0 m

m, 4

55 fp

mJo

yM

achi

ne4,

160

Pant

her

600-

Joy

7LS1

AJu

mbo

trac

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar98

8/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

Patr

iot C

oal

Eagl

e50

641,

020

16,2

001,

000

342

DDR

1,29

020

001,

271

48 T

IB 3

x1,2

0032

01,

388

mm

, 350

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Pinn

acle

No.

50

Poca

hont

as48

-48

-60

0-Ca

t GH

1600

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar1,

032/

Cate

rpill

arSe

rvic

e

Cliff

s Re

sour

ces

No. 3

5050

1,00

09,

000

1,30

03

7Pl

ow 1

,080

Chai

n71

534

TIB

2x8

0036

61,

188

mm

, 466

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Revo

lutio

n80

0-Jo

y 7L

S1A

Ultr

atra

cJo

yJo

y M

inin

g M

achi

nery

890/

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

rySe

rvic

e

Alph

a Na

tura

l Res

ourc

esPo

wel

ton

4878

1,00

010

,000

1,00

04

42DD

R 1,

625

2000

875

42 T

IB 3

x1,0

7234

71,

360

mm

, 450

fpm

Joy

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Robi

nson

Run

No.

95

Pitt

sbur

gh50

0-Jo

y 7L

S2Ju

mbo

Gea

rRac

kCa

tCa

terp

illar

/LW

Ass

ocia

tes

1,00

0/Ca

terp

illar

Line

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 892

871,

300

12,0

0090

03

42DD

R 1,

680

Indi

rect

Driv

e84

048

TIB

3x1

,900

365

1,18

8 m

m, 5

25 fp

mCa

tPo

wer

4,16

0

Shoe

mak

er

Pitt

sbur

gh60

-50

0-Jo

y 7S

L1A

Jum

bo T

rack

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar/P

F498

8/Ca

terp

illar

Line

CONS

OL E

nerg

yNo

. 865

651,

090

10,8

0013

003

38DD

R 16

2020

0080

042

TIB

3x7

5035

01,

190

mm

, 440

fpm

Cat

Pow

er4,

160

Tunn

el R

idge

Pitt

sbur

gh62

-68

-Jo

y 7L

S1A

Ultr

atra

cTu

nnel

Rid

geJo

y/LW

Ass

ocia

tes

1,00

0/Jo

yLi

ne

Allia

nce

Reso

urce

Par

tner

sNo

. 872

721,

000

9,00

040

03

4220

00JS

ST-1

,020

42 T

IB 3

x1,0

7334

01,

294

mm

, 443

fpm

Joy

Pow

er4,

160

WYO

MIN

G (3

)

Brid

ger

96-

Joy

7LS3

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar1,

000/

Cate

rpill

arSe

rvic

e

Paci

fic M

iner

als

D41

144

120

750

10,0

0070

03

39DD

R 1,

330

Jum

botr

ac92

642

TIB

2x1

,250

357

1,38

8 m

m, 4

23 fp

mCa

tM

achi

ne4,

160

Gree

n Ri

ver

Bed

96-

108-

Cat E

L300

0Ju

mbo

trac

Cat

Cate

rpill

ar95

0/Ca

terp

illar

Serv

ice

Solv

ay C

hem

ical

s17

130

130

505

5,00

01,

500

334

DDR

2,73

620

0080

038

TIB

2x7

0033

01,

532

mm

, 477

fpm

Cat

Mac

hine

4,16

0

Wes

tvac

oBe

d96

-96

-Jo

y 7L

S5Ul

trat

rac

Joy

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

ry1,

100/

Joy

Min

ing

Mac

hine

rySe

rvic

e

FMC

Corp

.17

132

132

750

9,40

01,

500

432

DDR

2,36

020

0087

042

TIB

2x1

,072

268

1,29

4 m

m, 3

85 fp

mJo

yM

achi

ne4,

160

Leg

end

: D

DR

2,0

00

mea

ns

dou

ble

-dru

m r

an

gin

g a

rm s

hea

rer

wit

h 2

,00

0 h

p i

nst

all

ed.

Cu

ttin

g m

ach

ines

rep

orte

d a

re a

ll s

hea

rer

typ

e u

nle

ss o

ther

wis

e in

dic

ate

d.

VFD

—V

ari

ab

le F

req

uen

cy D

rive

; S

S—

sin

gle

str

an

d;

TIB

—tw

in s

tra

nd

in

boa

rd;

42

TIB

2x1

,00

0 m

ean

s 4

2-m

m c

ha

in,

twin

str

an

d i

nb

oard

, tw

o 1

,00

0-h

p m

otor

s. *

Not

e: A

EM

I=A

mer

ica

n E

qu

ipm

ent

an

d M

ach

ine,

In

c.,

an

d M

EC

=M

urr

ay

En

erg

y C

orp

.

Seam

Cutt

ing

Pane

lPa

nel

Over

-No

. of

Dept

hRo

of s

uppo

rtFa

ce c

onve

yor

Face

con

veyo

rVo

ltage

Min

ehe

ight

heig

htw

idth

leng

thbu

rden

gate

of c

utHa

ulag

eyi

eld

type

wid

th (m

m)/

Stag

eloa

der

type

Elec

tric

alto

Com

pany

(par

ent)

Seam

(inch

es)

(inch

es)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

entr

ies

(inch

es)

Shea

rer

syst

em(t

ons)

(str

and,

mot

ors)

spee

d (f

pm)

wid

th, s

peed

Crus

her

cont

rols

face


s u p p o rt e q u i pm e n t


The capabilities of bulldozers and wheel loaders are, literally, yards

apart. With one designed to push and the other designed to lift, they

appear to have little in common. In the mining sector, however,

these two types of machines are linked by some mutual characteris-

tics: they both fall into the category of support equipment, lending

their specialized design strengths to the goal of making life easier for

primary production machines such as shovels and trucks; and in

mining applications, they rely mostly on power and mass to move

large volumes of material, thus posing a challenge to OEMs facing

customer expectations for improved economy of operation in each

new model. In the simplest terms, you can’t move a lot of dirt with-

out a lot of machine.

Despite the constraints posed by the need for machine mass

to move mountains, dozer and loader suppliers continue to find

ways to improve fuel economy, reliability, operational flexibility

and driver ergonomics. Not only do equipment designs contin-

ue to evolve, but the sector itself has seen notable changes in

brand ownership as well as the entry of new players in the glob-

al market. At the top end of the loader-capacity spectrum, for

example, LeTourneau Technologies, builder of the largest pro-

duction wheel loader in the world—the 587,800-lb (266 622-kg),

2,300-hp (1715-kW) L2350 ‘Gen 2’—was acquired by Joy Global

in 2011. And more recently LiuGong, a large Chinese construc-

tion equipment supplier, acquired a well-known Europe-based

dozer manufacturer, seeking increased exposure in a wider

market landscape.

The new-product stage has been quiet in recent months, as

manufacturers hold back on potential rollouts until later this

year when MINExpo 2012, the world’s largest all-mining equip-

ment exposition, draws near. However, mining-class units

introduced over the past year or so are, in some cases, making

their opening appearance in various market regions. Komatsu,

for example, recently shipped the first unit of its updated

WA1200-6 wheel loader to go to a North American mining oper-

ation. According to Des Jarvis, product marketing manager for

Komatsu’s mining-class loaders, this machine will be delivered

to a Canadian customer. The -6’s are built at Komatsu’s Ibaraki

plant in Japan, which opened in 2007 and is dedicated to pro-

duction of large wheeled equipment, mostly for export.

The WA1200-6, Komatsu’s largest loader, was announced in

September 2010 and officially entered the market in early 2011.

The new version included improvements such as 26.2-yd3 stan-

dard bucket capacity; a new, EPA Tier 2 emissions-compliant

diesel, better integration of engine and transmission for perfor-

mance and economy; higher reliability of major components;

and enhanced operator environment and serviceability. Other

notable features included a switch to variable displacement

steering pumps for more efficient power management, and the

standard equipment list was expanded to include a payload

meter with register and tracking functions.

Service weight for the WA1200-6, at 216,000 kg (476,000 lb) is

about 5% more than its predecessor, the WA1200-3. A new boom

design provides increased dump clearance, and although its rated

breakout force rating is the same as the -3, Komatsu claims the -6 is

considerably more stable, with static tipping load rating increasing

by several thous-and kilograms. The WA1200-6 also offers signifi-

cantly higher air cleaner capacity, along with ground-level service

points. Komatsu’s wireless VHMS (Vehicle Health Monitoring

System) has been renamed Komtrax Plus throughout the product

line and is included on the -6, accompanied by a new, more intu-

itive operator display inside the cab.

The loader is powered by a Komatsu SSDA16B160E-2 diesel, a

product of the Komatsu/Cummins Industrial Power Alliance engine

joint venture. It is equivalent to the Cummins QSK60 Tier 2 diesel

used in other mobile equipment applications.

The most recent dozer model from Komatsu is the D375A-6,

introduced in 2010 with new technology that enables higher pro-

ductivity—in the case of the -6 version, an estimated 8% more than

its predecessor.

The D375A-6’s lockup torque converter feature provides a

direct-drive connection between the engine and transmission for

more efficient use of engine power, particularly on long passes. For

utility dozing in which maximum power isn’t necessary, an econo-

my work-mode setting reduces engine output to save on fuel con-

sumption. For general dozing, the operator can use the

transmission’s automatic gearshift mode which downshifts on its

Tracks & Treads: Dozers and Loaders

Dig into Production Support Roles

Mining requires massive machines, capable of continuous operation in tough conditions. The newest loader and dozer models offer performance levels designed to meet the challenge.

Komatsu WA1200-6 loader.

B Y R U S S C A R T E R , W E S T E R N F I E L D E D I T O R


own when a load is applied and upshifts to a preset when the load is

removed. When ripping, the operator can select manual shifting,

which again downshifts automatically when load is applied but

does not upshift when the load lightens.

The dozer senses when the track shoes start to slip under

heavy load while ripping, and adjusts engine output accordingly

to avoid the damaging effects of slippage, which can accelerate

undercarriage wear. This feature also eliminates the need for the

operator to constantly work the deceleration pedal during rip-

ping and consequently reduces operator fatigue during extensive

ripping operations.

Drive-train parts are strengthened to handle the increased

horsepower on the -6, and primary power train components are

sealed in a modular configuration that allows them to be removed

and replaced without oil spillage. The undercarriage employs the

improved eight-roller, “K-Bogie” design used on the larger D475

series, which increases the length of track on the ground and also

provides an extended range of track-roller vertical travel.

The -6’s blade profile was modified to more closely resemble

that used on the D475 series, and the blade shoulder angle raised to

reduce spillage over the blade corners. Cross joints used at the con-

nection point of the lift cylinder and blade improve machine relia-

bility and speed field assembly of the equipment. The -6’s hydraulic

system has the higher efficiency, more reliable piston-type pumps

used on the D475 series rather than gear pumps.

Other improvements on the -6 range from latching, dual insulat-

ed gull-wing engine side covers for better maintenance access, to an

LCD color monitor in the pressurized, hexagonal-shaped cab.

Mining-specific features include items ranging from standard work

lights at the front, back and engine bay of the machine, to an unin-

terruptible power source in the cab that allows radio communica-

tion at all times. Manual engine shutdown switches are located in

the cab and at the rear of the machine, and a battery/starter isolator

box on the side of the dozer also includes a jump-start connection.

The -6’s built-in versatility allows it to handle a wide variety of

dozing tasks ranging from trap loading to a shovel, dragline and

dump assistance, stripping and roadbuilding to stockpile mainte-

nance, and Jackie D. Haney, product marketing manager for min-

ing-class dozers, confirms the -6 has found broad popularity in

stockpile applications, as well as appreciation from operators who

find the new machine easier to run and more comfortable than its

predecessor.

The D475A is the next model of Komatsu’s mining-class dozers

scheduled for an upgrade, according to Haney.

Cat’s Loaders & Dozers UpdatedCaterpillar has carried out a series of updates to its loader and dozer

lines, starting in May 2010 with an Extended High Lift Option (EHL)

for its model 994 loader. The EHL linkage provides 42 in. (1,075 mm)

more dump clearance than the High Lift linkage option, and

includes new lift arms, lift and tilt cylinders, tilt links and counter-

weight material. The additional lift height allows the operator to

back away from a truck without racking back the bucket, providing

the potential for faster cycle times. The additional lift also enables

the operator to dump the last pass without pushing material. The

latest version in the 994 series is the 430,858-lb (195 434-kg) 994H,

which when equipped with EHL linkage is rated at 35 tons (32 met-

ric tons) payload.

Cat followed up later in 2010 with a High Lift option for its 992K

loader, adding 24 in. (610 mm) of dump clearance over the standard

configuration. Equipped with a 14-yd3 (10.7-m3) bucket, a High-Lift

992K offers dump clearance of 17 ft 2 in. (5,232 mm). The High Lift

option reduces payload to 21.4 tons (19.1 mt) from the standard

unit’s 24-ton rating but enables the 992K to efficiently load 100- and

150-ton-capacity trucks—possibly eliminating the need to move to

a larger loader, which in the Cat product line would be the 993K

with a payload rating of 27.5 tons (24.9 mt) for the High Lift version

and 30 tons (27.2 mt) in the standard configuration.

Cat’s newest large loader, the 980K, was unveiled in March 2011

and, as the smallest of its mining-class wheel loaders with bucket

capacities ranging from 5.25–16 yd3 (4–12 m3), is not typically found

in high-production hardrock operations. However, it does offer a

wide range of performance, ergonomic and application-flexibility

features that make it well-suited for aggregate or small-mine duty

and various utility-loading tasks. Notable improvements featured

by the K version over its H-series predecessor include a new cab,

load-sensing hydraulics, a 25% increase in lift force and a 16%

increase in tilt force, along with new electro-hydraulic steering with

either joystick or steering wheel control, plus Performance Series

Buckets and an optional lock-up torque converter.

In mid-2011, Cat introduced upgraded versions of its popular

D11 bulldozer models. The new D11T and D11T CD offer design

refinements that include Enhanced Auto Shift, Dynamic Incli-

nation Monitor, automatic climate control and available automated

ripper control. The D11T and D11T CD’s 850-net-hp (634-kW) C32

engine, according to Cat, allows the machines to work fuel-effi-

ciently anywhere in the world, with blades ranging in capacity up to

57 yd3 (43.6 m3) and operating weights up to 248,456 lb (112 698 kg).

The engine is configured to meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emissions

standards for those geographical areas requiring stringent emis-

sions control; for less-regulated areas, it will be configured to meet

U.S. EPA Tier 2 equivalent emissions standards.

The T-Series D11s feature a new cooling package that uses a

two-part radiator with aluminum bar-plate cores which contribute

to durability, efficient heat transfer and corrosion resistance. The

s u p p o r t e q u i p m e n t c o n t i n u e d

Komatsu D375A-6 dozer.

Caterpillar D11T dozer.



new oil-to-air hydraulic-oil cooler uses similar construction, and a

hydraulic variable-demand fan uses less power, reduces fuel con-

sumption and decreases noise.

New for the D11T and D11T CD is the Enhanced Auto Shift (EAS)

system, designed to conserve fuel by automatically selecting the

optimal reverse gear and engine speed, based on load and desired

ground speed. When EAS is not activated, an Auto Downshift fea-

ture automatically changes gears to most efficiently handle loads.

Inside the cab, a Dynamic Inclination Monitor provides a readout of

tractor pitch angle and side-to-side slope angle, and Automated

Blade Assist Control uses preset blade-pitch positions to simplify

positioning. An optional Autocarry system automatically controls

the blade during the carry segment. A new operator-presence sys-

tem locks out the power train and hydraulic system to avoid unin-

tentional machine movement when the operator is entering or

leaving the cab, which can be done via an optional hydraulically

actuated access ladder.

The D11T and D11T CD feature an “OK-to-Start” system that

electronically checks critical fluid levels. Routine maintenance is

facilitated by easily accessible filters, an optional automatic lubrica-

tion system, high-speed oil change for engine and power train sys-

tems, and ecology drains for capturing fluids for proper disposal or

recycling. A fast-fill fueling system incorporates a positive shutoff to

prevent spills.

Another dozer upgrade—the D9T—was announced in

November 2011. The 110,000-lb (49 900-kg) operating-weight D9T

is powered by a C18 diesel rated at 410 net hp (306 kW). For

improved comfort and efficiency, a low-effort electronic control

handle gives the operator single-hand control of all dozer functions.

For added safety, a Dynamic Inclination Monitor provides readouts

of the tractor's pitch angle and side-to-side slope, and an operator-

presence system locks out the power train and hydraulic system to

avoid machine movement when the operator is entering or leaving

the cab, assisted by redesigned steps, handles and guardrails. An

available visibility package includes mirrors on the lift cylinders and

a ROPS-mounted camera system with a color monitor mounted

near the rear view mirror.

In line with the improvements made to the D11T dozers, the

D9T also features EAS, cooling system enhancements, and the OK-

to-Start system.

Liebherr, Volvo: High-tech Performance, with EconomyLast year’s CONEXPO/CONAGG construction equipment exhibi-

tion in Las Vegas, Nev., provided a stage for OEMs offering

machines in the lower range of potentially useful capacity for min-

ing applications to highlight their latest models. Liebherr, for exam-

ple, which lays claim to the title of building the world’s largest

hydrostatic-drive dozer and wheel loader, showcased its flagship

PR764 Litronic, a 422-hp (310-kW) dozer with an operating weight

of approximately 116,150 lb (52.5 metric tons).

As with all its hydrostatic-drive machines, the PR764’s diesel

engine provides power to variable-displacement pumps and

motors in closed circuit. According to the company, this stepless

system allows the dozer to constantly provide an optimum drive

ratio for any dozing job, including heavy-duty ripping. Because the

engine always operates within its optimum rpm range, fuel con-

sumption is reduced, engine wear is decreased and the low engine

speed provides a quieter running machine.

The PR764 Litronic has the same profile and ergonomic features

common to all Generation 4 Liebherr dozers. With a redesigned

operator’s cab and sloping outer edges, it provides the operator

with high visibility of the working area as well as the blade and rear

ripper. The dozer also features demand-controlled cooling, wear-

free braking via the hydrostatic drive system and a long list of

options.

In a similar vein, a characteristic feature of Liebherr’s range of

large wheel loaders is the optimized hydrostatic drive concept,

based on two directly coupled hydraulic motors of different sizes,

each with a separate clutch. Because at least one of the two motors

is active when the wheel loader accelerates and decelerates, the

loader can adjust to any working condition regardless of travel

speed required and without the need for the operator to shift gears.

With an operating weight of 69, 180 lb (31 mt) the L586 Litronic is

the flagship of Liebherr’s wheel loader line and is the largest wheel

loader in the world with hydrostatic drive. The L586 displayed at Las

Vegas had a 7.8 yd3 bucket with a v-pattern overflow plate and teeth.

The exhibit model was also equipped with a rear collision guard,

undercarriage protection and twin LED work area lights at the front

and rear. Other equipment included an audible warning signal when

reversing and camera monitoring of the area behind the vehicle. The

L586 is powered by a Liebherr six-cylinder, turbocharged diesel

engine with a charge air intercooler, and develops 340 hp (250 kW).

Volvo Construction Equipment does not have a dozer product

line, but offers a wide selection of wheel loaders, with the L350F at

the top of the line’s payload rating range. When introduced several

years ago, Volvo CE reported that the new model provided an 18%

increase in productivity and 46% better fuel economy over its pre-

decessor, when tested in load and carry operations. The source of

these improvements, said Volvo CE, resided in the combination of

the L350F’s new Tier 3/Stage IIIA Volvo engine, stronger hydraulics,

an improved lift arm, a new transmission with lock-up and new

axles.

The L350F’s Volvo D16E engine produces most of its 532 hp (397

kW) and torque at low engine speeds, reducing the need for over-

revving as well as providing better fuel economy, reliability and low

noise and emissions. The engine is mated to the latest transmission

from Volvo—the HTE400—with automatic lockup in third and

fourth gears. The transmission features automatic power shifting

that offers a selection of shift programs to suit the application as

well as operator work style. The system also can be activated to

automatically downshift to first gear, leaving the operator only hav-

ing to select between forward and reverse gears.

Stopping power comes in the form of outboard-mounted wet

disc brakes with oil cooling. Powered by a hydraulic dual circuit

brake system, the parking brake automatically applies when the

engine is switched off or if brake pressure too low. Brake condition

can be monitored by wear indicators on each hub and a brake test

can be done from inside the cab.



Liebherr PR764 Litronic dozer.


The load sensing hydraulics system on the L350F also were

improved, with variable displacement pumps providing exact flow

and pressure on demand. Bucket capacity for the L350F ranges

from 8.1 to 16.6 yd3 (6.2 to 12.7 m3). Breakout force is rated at

106,290 lb-ft (472.8 kN).

The L350F’s lift arm features improved geometry that is claimed

to provide good rollback angles as well as better attachment visibili-

ty. The loader also can be specified with boom options: the long

boom gives additional dump height while a Boom Suspension

System features heavy duty shock absorbers that reduce bucket

spillage and allow faster, more comfortable, work cycles.

East Meets West in the Dozer Market

LiuGong Machinery Corp., Liuzhou, China, recently finalized an

agreement to acquire Polish heavy equipment manufacturer HSW

(Huta Stalowa Wola) and its distribution subsidiary, Dressta Ltd.

The transaction is LiuGong’s first outright acquisition outside its

domestic market.

HSW manufactures bulldozers, loaders and other crawler

machines, and is one of only seven manufacturers worldwide pro-

ducing a complete line of bulldozers from 74 hp to 520 hp. The

Polish government, which owned HSW, had agreed in principal to

sell to LiuGong earlier this year with the signing of a preliminary

enterprise acquisition agreement in Beijing, China.

The roots of HSW/Dressta earthmover technology can be

traced back to 1972, when HSW entered into a licensing agree-

ment with the U.S. agricultural equipment builder International

Harvester, which had formed a Construction Equipment Division

in the mid-1940s and was eager to expand market scope for its

dozers and loaders into Eastern Block countries. International

Harvester, however, encountered rough economic waters in the

early 1980s and the construction division was acquired by Dresser

Industries, which later struck a joint agreement with Komatsu for

manufacture of dozers, loaders and other equipment. Komatsu

took control of the entity in the mid-1990s and carried on the

longstanding arrangement with HSW, eventually establishing

Dressta as a joint venture. Komatsu’s participation in the venture

ended in 2005.

LiuGong’s acquisition of HSW is a strategic step for the Chinese

company, which has a stated goal of becoming a top-10 construc-

tion equipment manufacturer by 2015. The HSW transaction,

according to LiuGong, opens an avenue to obtain core technologies

that will help it advance some of its product designs, supplements

LiuGong’s product lines, provides a manufacturing and logistic

footprint in Europe and expands LiuGong’s penetration into market

and product segments.

Dressta TD-40E Extra dozer.




LiuGong currently offers a full line of construction equipment

that includes wheel loaders, bulldozers, skid steers, forklifts, motor

graders, excavators and mining trucks, among others. The compa-

ny sold 75,000 machines in 2011 and has one of the largest global

dealer networks of any of its Chinese competitors, consisting of

nearly 280 dealers in more than 95 countries, supported by nine

subsidiary offices and 10 parts depots.

HSW was established in 1937 and builds dozers at its plant in

southwestern Poland. HSW also produces wheel loaders, log-

gers, pipe layers, conveyer belt shifters, motor graders and

machines customized for landfill applications, also for global

markets.

David Beatenbough, currently vice president of research and

development for LiuGong, has been named chairman of the board

of the new entity, LiuGong Machinery (Poland) sp z o.o.

Beatenbough commented on how HSW will fit into LiuGong’s plans

and product lines: “We will acquire proven technology within the

bulldozer segment, as we will now own all the technology and

designs, including undercarriages and driveline components,” he

explained, adding that LiuGong will benefit from HSW’s experience

with large machines, and from HSW’s plant location in central

Europe—closer to European customers.

LiuGong intends to move rapidly to integrate processes and

production. A talent exchange will bring Chinese engineers to

Poland, and send Polish engineers to China for training. The

first fast-track project will be an investment into production line

equipment and retooling at the Podkarpackie plant, enabling it

to produce LiuGong excavators and wheel loaders. LiuGong also

will quickly leverage the combined distribution network to

bring the expanded product line to dealers—HSW products to

LiuGong dealers, and LiuGong products to HSW/Dressta deal-

ers. Relative to brand names, Beatenbough said, for the near

term all three brands will be retained in certain markets.

The largest dozer model in the Dressta line is the TD-40E Extra,

powered by a Cummins QSK19 Tier 3 engine delivering 515 net hp

at 2,000 rpm, linked to a transmission that provides six forward and

six reverse speeds. Equipped with a semi-U blade and single-shank

ripper, the TD-40E Extra weighs approximately 67.7 metric tons

(149,000 lb), which makes it about two tons lighter than a Komatsu

D375A and more than a ton heavier than a Cat D10T. Capacity

when equipped with a full-U blade is 22.8 m3.

Dressta said it has engineered the dozer’s hydraulic control sys-

tem with advanced solid-state electronic circuitry to provide an

electro-hydraulic system in which all control functions are activated

by movement of the joystick or by selecting control buttons on the

face of the joystick. The joystick control handles up- and down-

shifting of the transmission, low or high range selection of left and

right track drives or full-power geared turns.

A rear platform located below the fuel tank aids in refueling, air-

conditioning filter changes and cab rear window cleaning to

enhance serviceability. Maintenance includes a 500-hour oil change

interval. The cab is sealed and has a built-in air-recirculation sys-

tem. An air-suspension operator’s seat swivels at an angle to pro-

vide better visibility of the ripper when necessary.

Dressta’s largest wheel loader, the 92,000-lb (41 650-kg) 560E

Extra, also is powered by a Cummins diesel, in this instance a 427-

hp (319-kW) QSX15. Available in both standard boom and high-lift

configurations, the loader offers bucket capacity of 7.5 yd3 (5.7 m3)

in the standard version and 7 yd3 in high-lift. Depending on bucket

style, dump clearance at maximum height ranges from 10 ft 11 in. to

11 ft 6 in, (3.34 m to 3.59 m); breakout force also varies with bucket

style, ranging from 71,149 lb to 78,950 lb (318 kN to 351 kN).




Endless foreign wars, endless Federal budget cuts and endless politi-

cal debates are starting to take a collective toll on the health and via-

bility of our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, once the envy of the

world. While most taxpayers are familiar with the limitations of the

nation’s highway system, far fewer understand the problems now

commonplace along the U.S. inland waterways system. Traversed

daily by thousands of barges and tows owned by dozens of operators,

industry and government stakeholders are becoming increasingly

frustrated as the locks and dams that comprise much of the water-

ways infrastructure continue to fail at accelerating rates. As funds dry

up from the Federal level, it will be left to industry, labor and local

governments to shore up the liquid arteries of commerce that bind

this nation together.

Unique among the network of rivers that make up the U.S. inland

waterways, the Ohio River would be considered a major coal river.

Hundreds of millions of tons of coal travel through the Ohio River’s

many locks and dams annually going from mine to power plant, and

increasingly from mine to export facility. As domestic utilities reduce

the collective coal burn, now more than 10% of the combined steam

and thermal coal produced in the U.S. is heading overseas. With coal

traffic patterns changing as a result of this market shift, larger

amounts of river-borne coal are seeking new outlets, especially as

existing rail-served coal ports become clogged with other traffic.

Complicating transit is the fact that many locks and dams on the

Upper Mississippi and particularly the Ohio River are ancient, some

over a century old, and quite a few are way past their design life. As

each day passes, the threat of a significant or catastrophic lock or dam

failure becomes more imminent. While America has so far dodged

that bullet, the right bolt breaking lose at the wrong time in the wrong

place could wreak havoc on coal markets.

The Federal Government continues to invest funds in various riv-

er improvement projects. Tremendous amounts of money have been

tied up for years in one of the biggest boondoggles in modern times:

the Olmstead Lock and Dam on the lower Ohio. Initially budgeted at

$775 million, projected costs have today climbed to more than $2.1

billion and there’s no end in sight. Moreover, according to the way in

which money has been allocated and prioritized, under existing law,

dozens of other projects are being held up while Olmstead is “fin-

ished.” Meanwhile, the inland waterways become more fragile.

According to the Waterways Council, a Washington-based indus-

try group, moving coal and other freight via barge through the

nation’s river system is the most energy efficient mode of transporta-

tion. On average, barges move a ton of cargo 576 miles per 1 gallon of

fuel. A rail car, by contrast, will move the same ton of cargo 413 miles

per gallon. Trucks are the worst, averaging only 155 miles travel per

that 1 gallon of fuel. One of the largest river shippers, American

Electric Power (AEP) is able to do better: squeezing an average of over

642 miles traveled per gallon of fuel used. But in our increasingly car-

bon constrained and supposedly “greening” economy, America’s

inland waterways are actually becoming less efficient and reliable. As

Congress debates how much to fund the waterways through this win-

ter, shippers wonder how the inevitable spring floods will affect them

and their customers later this year.

The Ohio: America’s Real Coal River

In a presentation delivered at the Coal Handling & Storage confer-

ence, which was held during November in St. Louis, Keith Darling,

president of AEP’s River Operations, discussed how fragile the Ohio

River system’s lock and dam infrastructure has become.

Headquartered in Chesterfield, Mo., AEP’s River Operations sub-

sidiary is the second largest dry bulk barge company on the inland

waterways transporting more than 71 million tons of commodities

each year. Traversing almost all of the nation’s river systems, AEP

moves about 32 million tons of coal annually into AEP power plants

as well as another 3 million tons of limestone and urea, which is used

in emission control systems, also traveling by barge.

Throughout the nation’s heartland, the Ohio, Illinois, Green,

Tennessee, and the Upper and Lower Mississippi rivers and other

rivers carry millions of tons of cargo to hundreds of industrial facili-

ties. While the Lower Mississippi does not have any locks and dams,

i n l a n d wat e rways

LOCKED Out: Aging Locks and Dams

Jeopardize Inland WaterwaysIs a catastrophic cascading systems failure about to occur along the Ohio River?

B Y L E E B U C H S B A U M , A S S O C I A T E E D I T O R A N D P H O T O G R A P H E R


Transporting coal along the inland waterways makes sense, but the system has been pushed beyond its limits.


some of the oldest in the nation are on the upper Mississippi. But, in

terms of cargo, it’s really a grain river as is the Illinois. “If you really

want to talk about a coal river, we’re talking about the Ohio,” Darling

said. With almost 40 locks and dams throughout a system comprising

both the Monongahela and Allegheny rivers as well as the Ohio River,

Darling explained, more coal flows over these waters than any where

else in the nation.

For hundreds of miles from Pittsburgh, Pa., to Cairo, Ill., where it

meets the Mississippi, the Ohio River valley is dotted by factories,

chemical plants, power plants and other industrial facilities. Over the

course of a year more than 200 million tons of cargo move through its

locks and dams, and no cargo is more plentiful than coal.

Lock Outages on the OhioAs the Inland River system ages, Darling likened the situation to a

form of Russian roulette, pulling the trigger each time the system

locks another tow, and hoping there’s no bullet in that chamber.

Most of the dams’ “design life were exceeded 50 years ago and it’s

heroic to keep those structures operating. As they get older and we

don’t do proper maintenance and we don’t modernize them, their

reliability has become challenged,” said Michael Toohey, president

and CEO of the Waterways Council, the primary industry group asso-

ciated with protecting that viability.

As compiled by AEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, since 2000,

more locks are closing for repair or maintenance every year. And as

the system continues to fatigue, the amount of time locks are out for

repairs grows each year as well. “Lock outages have increased three-

fold in a 10-year period. Throughout 2009, there was a lock out some-

where on the Ohio River roughly 25% of the year,” said Darling.

Over the next 20 years lock gate failures will continue steadily.

“Lock gate failures will occur at increasing rates over the next couple

decades. Indeed by the year 2020, the Corps predicts that all 40 lock

gates on the Ohio will fail at some point in time. That’s the Corps’ pre-

diction. And amazingly they’ve been about 100% at predicting lock

failures,” Darling said.

Those lock failures have major impacts to the traffic on the Ohio

River. When a main chamber on the Ohio River fails, all traffic must

use an auxiliary lock chamber instead. Generally the auxiliary cham-

bers are only half the size of the main chambers, forcing barge lines to

break tows in half and move a tow through in two or more pieces.

“This adds time and it creates queues. Locks you typically drive up to

and lock directly through, you’ll sit at for two, three, even four days

while waiting for your turn to move through. And, time is money,”

said Darling. The extra costs the shippers bear generally translate into

higher costs per delivered ton and increased costs for ratepayers. All

of this translates to higher costs for coal, which only prices it further

out when compared to natural gas.

Using the Corps and AEP’s data, in three years—by 2015—the

main chambers of five dams, which currently lock through a com-

bined 72.2 million tons per year (tpy), will fail (Hannibal L&D, 17.4

million tpy; Willow Island L&D, 17 million tpy; Belleville L&D, 16.5

million tpy; Lock 52, 17.9 million tpy; and Lock 53 3.4 million tpy).

In fact, by 2020, both the main and auxiliary locks will have failed

on four dams along with the mains on four others. Millions of tons

would be displaced. Essentially, that amount of cascading lock and

dam failures would clog up the river, perhaps rendering it uneco-

nomical compared to competing modes as dwell times and costs

rise precipitously.

Too much hyperbole? Perhaps. But Darling and AEP believe that

even today, one key installation failure could have tremendous reper-

cussions. In his presentation, Darling discussed the ramifications of a

hypothetical lock failure at the Belleville lock and dam, located at

milepost 203.9 on the Ohio River. A team at AEP studied what the sys-

tem-wide ramifications would be if a gate failure occurred at

Belleville, essentially in middle of the Ohio River system. Belleville is

one of six dams (out of 40) that has earned a “D” condition rating by

the Corps. It is expected to fail sometime between today and 2015—

along with four others.

When, not if, Belleville fails, roughly 16.5 million tons of through-

put could be affected, causing a displacement of well more than 1.3

million tons. That failure alone could “add about 6.8 cents per kilo-

watt-hour to the average customer. And the average customer uses

about 100 kilowatts per day. Though $6.80 per day doesn’t sound like

a lot, in a month that’s about $204 more that every electric utility cus-

tomer of AEP would have to pay. And AEP is only one of many utilities

along the Ohio River,” said Darling.

Of course, any increased transportation costs will be further

heaped upon the mountain of other costs from a whole slew of expen-

sive environmental regulations and other burdens conspiring to drive

up the cost of coal-fired generated electricity.

How the Corps of Engineers Spends Its FundsSo why are America’s dams failing and how well has Congress pre-

pared the country by allocating the resources to prevent this looming

systems failure? Not well. Think “neglect.” But, Darling cautioned,

this long-term neglect “didn’t happen under this recession. It didn’t

happen under Obama. This has been occurring over decades.

Congress is not funding lock and dams,” he said. So what you have is

a system constructed for a 50-year life that, through neglect, has seen

its life expectancy actually decrease. However, industry will continue

to use these same locks and dams longer than those planned 50 years.

“It’s a situation that we can’t sustain without some investment,”

Darling said.

Currently maintenance of the Inland Waterways system comes

from both funds allocated by Congress and from a variety of user fees

administered by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). Currently

the barge industry pays a $0.20/gallon diesel fuel tax into the IWTF.

That adds up. AEP alone paid more than $10.2 million into the fund in

2010. A cost-sharing formula was established in 1986 so that half the

lock and dam construction costs are paid out of the IWTF and the bal-

ance from general revenues. This includes construction and major

rehabilitation initiatives.

The Inland Waterways Users Board was also established in 1986 to

advise Congress and the Secretary of the Army about inland water-

ways system priorities and spending levels. Currently the Trust Fund

generates roughly $70-$90 million annually, far less than what is nec-

essary. The modernization needs of the system, as projected by both

AEP and the Corps, far exceeds the annual IWTF revenues. And cur-

i n l a n d w a t e r w a y s c o n t i n u e d



rently far too much of those meager revenues are being sucked up by

just one project: the infamous Olmsted Lock and Dam.

Olmsted Lock and Dam: Boondoggle on the OhioThe Olmsted Lock and Dam construction project is actually two pro-

jects at once. One is the actual construction of the new locks and

dam, but also the phasing out of the busy locks 52 and 53. Located

just up-stream of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi at Cairo,

Ill., Olmsted replaces these older dams with the one new one. “It’s just

become an enormously expensive proposition,” said Toohey.

In 1988, Congress authorized the Olmstead project at $775 million

for a 12-year construction period. Because of the cost sharing formula

for the initial funding authorization, about half of the cost was to

come out of the IWTF, roughly $387 million over those 12 years.

“What that worked out to was about $32 million a year spread over 12

years to come out of that fund for one project. But the fund is still sup-

posed to fund all of the major projects on all the locks and dams on all

the rivers in the U.S.,” Darling said.

However, the Olmsted project quickly fell behind schedule. After

spending more than $1.3 billion so far, there continue to be problems,

delays, and more delays. Over this time, Olmsted’s project cost has

ballooned to more than $2.1 billion. And now, instead of a 12-year

project, it will take at least 26 years to complete. Worse for the IWTF,

“using the same cost sharing formula, 50% or $1.05 billion will come

out of the fund. That’s $40.3 million per year for at least 26 years. And

the sad part is, the Corps says it doesn’t think it can meet that. So

Olmsted is going to be higher in cost than even this and it’s going to

be a longer timeline to completion. The business model for financing

our navigation infrastructure just isn’t working,” Darling said.

There’s a growing sense of frustration and almost helplessness in

the industry because no other projects can be prosecuted or imple-

mented until Olmsted is back on schedule or completed—or the rules

are changed. “We’re very concerned because the project is com-

manding all the money for this modernization build out, even though

we have 25 other authorized projects. That’s more than $8 billion of

backlogged work that we can’t get to because of the priority Congress

has established for the appropriation of funds,” said Toohey.

So in essence, as those contractors fritter away the time, and

increase the price of the project, Congress has put all other major

waterways projects on hold. “In its defense, Olmsted has great ben-

efits. It returns $8 back to the community for every dollar invested.

It’s a good project, but it’s just become an enormously expensive

project. That’s probably because of the use of experimental engi-

neering technology. They are trying to build a dam in the wet rather

than use traditional structures,” said Toohey.

Then again, the other projects on the drawing boards would gen-

erate lots of revenue and jobs as well. “In the short term we have $8

billion of family wage construction work being held up. The Corps fig-

ures 30,000 jobs per every $1 billion spent, so that’s 240,000 jobs.

Those projects are already authorized, but we need federal funding,”

said Toohey. The majority of them will be located along the Ohio.

Just as importantly, modernization of the waterways will attract

more investments along it, and thus more jobs. “Facilities that are

located along the waterways, precisely because of their ability to

transport goods in a reliable, efficient and environmentally friendly

manner, are now in jeopardy, especially new build outs. “Shell Oil Co.

stated it wants to locate a plant along the Ohio River. It has

announced that it will either be in Ohio, West Virginia or

Pennsylvania to take advantage of the crude oil production in the

Marcellus shale gas. With the multiplier effect factored in, they esti-

mate this plant, including construction, will create another 17,500

jobs,” said Toohey.

Solutions to Difficult and Expensive ProblemsIn an effort to try to fix this failing model, a group of industry stake-

holders including the Coast Guard, the Waterways Council and oth-

ers sat down and hammered out a plan. Titled the “Inland Marine

Transportation Systems Capital Projects Business Model,” the plan

“would allow us to complete 25 projects in a 20-year period as

opposed to seven projects over a 20-year period if we go down the

current path. And I have serious doubts that they’ll even be able to

accomplish the seven projects at the pace they’re going,” said Darling.

The new plan provides for additional revenues for the trust

fund, it re-prioritizes the nation’s investments, and recognizes and

accounts for all the beneficiaries of the water systems, and “it pro-

tects commercial users that cost-share the construction projects,”

said Darling.

The development plan has five elements. The first is to increase

Federal funding for the program from the current $160 million a year

to $380 million. Second, it suggests a way to prioritize the projects so

that those that are ready to go and provide the most benefit would be

funded first. Third, it proposes reforming the core project delivery

process that now takes 40 years to achieve “what we used to be able to

achieve in four years. And finally, it proposes to increase the current

diesel fuel tax of $0.20 a gallon to $0.69 a gallon to help pay for these

projects,” said Toohey.

Indeed, the waterways users would “volunteer to pay more money

for an increased fuel tax,” said Toohey. Stakeholders hope that by tak-

ing a page out of the Warren Buffet playbook and showing a willing-

ness to increase their collective exposure, maybe the government will

follow suit. But so far, as the Great Recession wanes on, Congress’

reception has been decidedly mixed. “Members that understand the

importance of investment and infrastructure support it and those

that are just, ‘no new taxes,’ of course oppose this,” said Toohey.

While industry is prepared to raise its stake, the only thing that

can really save the existing system are more Federal funds. “It really

is going to take convincing Congress that we need more infrastruc-

ture investment. This is not a discussion about raising taxes. It’s

about having the resources to invest so that our economy can thrive.

Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) has agreed to be a champion for

the proposal in House of Representatives. For the sake of the Inland

Waterways system and to maintain the health and viability of our

nation’s industrial heartland, we need to pass the Whitfield bill,”

said Toohey.

i n l a n d w a t e r w a y s c o n t i n u e d



Responding to a competitive bid from

Weir, FLSmidth increased its offer to

A$10/share for Ludowici during mid-

February, which values the company at

A$358 million ($384 million). Headquar-

tered in Brisbane, Australia, Ludowici is a

leading provider of vibrating screens, coal

centrifuges, and complementary wear

resistant products and services for the

minerals industries.

During January 2012, FLSmidth sur-

prised many in the mining business when

it announced it had entered into an

agreement with Ludowici offering

$7.20/share. Under that agreement,

Ludowici’s board had granted FLSmidth

access to perform a confidential due dili-

gence. At the time, Ludowici Investments

Pty Ltd. and Julian Ludowici and the

other Ludowici directors, who together

control approximately 22% of the out-

standing shares of Ludowici, said that, in

the absence of a superior proposal,

they would support the deal. In the

meantime, they received a competitive,

non-binding bid of A$7.92/share from

Weir Group plc. They are saying the same

thing again. FLSmidth’s original offer was

also subject to due diligence, but that is

no longer the case.

“Ludowici is a well-known and

respected brand in the coal processing

sector,” said Keith Cochrane, chief execu-

tive, Weir Group plc. “The potential

acquisition would extend Weir’s offering

in minerals processing and expand our

exposure to the attractive and fast grow-

ing coal sector where Weir is relatively

unrepresented. As a part of the global

Weir Minerals business, we would look to

accelerate the growth of Ludowici, con-

sistent with Weir’s 2010 acquisition of

Linatex.”

Acquiring Ludowici would allow both

companies to add to their respective pro-

cessing flowsheets. Weir would gain more

access to coal and FLSmidth would

improve its copper and iron ore offerings.

With 450 employees and approximately

65% of its turnover in Australia, the acqui-

sition of Ludowici would significantly

expand both companies’ presence in an

important mining region. Another impor-

tant aspect of the transaction would be

customer service. Approximately 60% of

Ludowici’s turnover relates to customer

services activities, including spare parts

and consumables.

Vendors Form Global Screening AllianceGermany’s Haver & Boecker, owner of

Ontario-based W.S. Tyler Canada Ltd.,

and Quebec-based Major Wire Industries

Ltd., have reached an agreement to

establish a global screening alliance.

Bringing together their collective experi-

ence of more than 250 years in screening

and a broad product line involving vibrat-

ing screens, washing and pelletizing

equipment and screen media, the

alliance seeks to expand growth opportu-

nities while further strengthening their

current capabilities with customers

throughout North America and globally.

Representing its parent company

Haver & Boecker, W.S. Tyler acquired a

40% share of Major Wire Industries

January 1, 2012, and will purchase the

remaining 60% in 2016.

In North America, W.S. Tyler has

Canadian facilities in St. Catharines,

Ontario, and Edmonton, Alberta, and a

U.S. facility in Salisbury, N.C., while

Major Wire has operations in the

Montreal area, and a U.S. facility in

Puyallup, Wash.

W.S. Tyler management has asked

Major Wire to manage its Salisbury

woven wire facility with the intent to

serve Major Wire’s extensive dealer net-

work throughout the U.S. and in Latin

America. All remaining operations for

both companies within North America

and globally will continue to operate

independently. W.S. Tyler and Major

Wire dealers and representatives

throughout the world will also continue

serving their respective customers and

prospects as they do today.

“Our alliance with Major Wire will

prove to be a unique opportunity for two

family-owned manufacturers to effec-

tively employ their combined strengths

and expertise to the benefit of the North

American and global mining, mineral

and aggregate markets,” said Walter

s c r e e n m ac h i n e s u p dat e

FLSmidth Ups the Ante for Ludowici


Ludowici manufactures some of the largest screening machines, such as the multi-slope banana shown here.


Haver, joint owner of Haver & Boecker.

“It is clearly a win-win for all personnel,

sales channels, vendors and most of all,

the customers we serve.”

“A few years ago, I began developing a

succession plan that would ensure that

Major Wire would continue to expand

and provide a long-term opportunity for

our employees after I retire,” said Jean

Leblond, president and owner, Major

Wire Industries. He added that he has

found a partner that shares the same val-

ues, desire to invest in the future, and

focuses on the customer first.

W.S. Tyler pioneered many of the

standards the mining, industrial mineral

and aggregate industries operate under.

The company has specialized in design-

ing, manufacturing and servicing custom

screening technology for more than a

century. It also has an Architecture &

Design division that creates unique

design solutions made out of woven wire.

Since being purchased by Haver &

Boecker in 1997, W.S. Tyler has intro-

duced a new wave of innovation in

screening technology while also branch-

ing out into environmentally friendly

technologies, including washing and pel-

letizing. Major Wire is a leading manu-

facturer of innovative screen media,

including Flex-Mat 3 Tensioned and

Modular and OptimumWire Woven Wire.

Major Wire recently celebrated the

15th anniversary of Flex-Mat indepen-

dently vibrating wire technology, now in

its third generation with Flex-Mat 3

Tensioned and Modular versions. Since

its introduction in 1996, Flex-Mat tech-

nology has revolutionized the screening

industry, providing solutions to common

screening challenges and a way to

increase product value and return on

investment. Previously, self-cleaning

screen media was mostly available

through European manufacturers, result-

ing in long lead times and high costs for

North American screening operations.

Leblond solved this problem when he

began locally manufacturing tensioned

self-cleaning screen media produced

without cross wires that lasts up to three

times longer than traditional woven wire.

Since then, Major Wire has been able to

manufacture the product cost effectively

with competitive lead times for screening

operations throughout the world.

Unique in design, Flex-Mat technolo-

gy is made of crimped wires assembled

side-by-side and held together by dis-

tinctive lime-green polyurethane strips.

Because each wire vibrates independent-

ly, it increases material screening action

and in-spec material throughput, virtual-

ly eliminates blinding, pegging and clog-

ging and reduces downtime spent

cleaning or replacing screen media.

Major Wire further advanced Flex-Mat

technology by introducing 1-foot x 1-foot

(305 mm x 305 mm) panels for modular

screen decks in 2007 and 1-foot x 2-foot

(305 mm x 610 mm) modular panels in

2011. To date, Flex-Mat vibrating wire

technology has been proven in more than

20,000 aggregate, mining and recycle

applications worldwide.

Initially available in Series D and T ten-

sioned panels, Flex-Mat technology was

offered in Series S in 1999 and LFM Harp

Wire in 2001. Introduced in 2005, its third

generation, Flex-Mat 3 Tensioned, provides

more open area and screening capacity

than woven wire. Now available in Flex-

Mat 3 Modular, it also provides more open

area and screening capacity than tradition-

al polyurethane and rubber panels. In both

versions, the technology increases product

throughput by up to 40%. Flex-Mat 3 pro-

vides benefits on every screen box deck:

eliminating near-size pegging on top decks,

producing cleaner retained product

through the middle decks and preventing

fine material blinding on bottom decks.

For tensioned screen decks, Flex-Mat

3’s signature lime-green polyurethane

strips align to the screen box’s crown bars

and hold individual wires in place as they

run from hook to hook. It is available in the

industry’s broadest range of opening

sizes—30 mesh to 4 inches—and with the

widest range of application-specific wire

diameters.

On modular screen decks, Flex-Mat 3 is

available in 1-foot x 1-foot (305 mm x 305

mm) and 1-foot x 2-foot (305 mm x 610 mm)

panels to replace existing polyurethane and

rubber panels on each deck wherever

throughput is compromised or the entire

deck for maximum production. Flex-Mat 3

Modular is available in a variety of attach-

ment systems to fit virtually any flat-surface

deck.

Double Force Rotary Electric VibratorsFor heavy-duty mining and industrial

screener applications, Cleveland Vibrator

Co. coupled rotary electric drives deliver

consistent, reliable force outputs up to

80,000+ lb. These double force rotary

electric vibrators are ideally suited for

applications where more force is needed

than one vibrating motor can generate,

and where division of vibrating force is

essential for the maintenance of equip-

ment intensity.

Coupled Cleveland Vibrator RE-54-8

units have 900 rpm rotary electric vibra-

tor motors that are available in 230, 460,

380 or 575 Volt 3-phase versions. All of

the 900 rpm rotary electric vibrator

motors are rated for continuous duty at

the maximum force setting.

The 10-hp coupled rotary electric RE-

54-8 460V vibrators exert a maximum

s c r e e n i n g m a c h i n e s u p d a t e c o n t i n u e d


On modular screen decks, Flex-Mat 3 is available in 1- x 1-ft panels.


force of 10,800 lb with an unbalanced

moment of 1,220 inch-lb. The units draw

29.2 amps at 230 volts and 17.2 amps at

460 volts. The mechanism weighs 1,505

lb, including connecting gear. For spe-

cialized equipment needs, coupled rotary

electric heavy-duty industrial vibrators

can be customized.

In addition to double force rotary elec-

tric vibrators, Cleveland Vibrator also

offers a large stock of more than 50 models

including four frequency ranges, 3,600,

1,800, 1,200 and 900 rpm, and force out-

puts from 30 to 40,000+ lb. The durable

rotary electric line offers the lowest noise

level of any type of vibratory device—an

average of 58bdbA at 4 ft. Permanently

greased bearings require no maintenance.

Continuous duty design allows opera-

tion at maximum force setting in the worst

environments, and without aggravation of

periodic shut down. A simple mechanical

adjustment on the eccentric weights allow

adjustable force outputs. Rotary electric

vibrators from Cleveland Vibrator permit

the eccentrics to be set at any point from

0% to 100% of full force output. The units

are pre-set from the factory at 40%.

The terminal box and cabling have

been designed to withstand vibration,

dust and humidity. The terminal box

itself is packed with a specially devel-

oped compound which is non-hardening

and has high adhesion to protect the

motor leads. The lead cable is an anti-

vibration, butyl rubber insulated, chloro-

prene cabtire cable which guarantees

long life.

s c r e e n i n g m a c h i n e s u p d a t e c o n t i n u e d


The Coupled Cleveland Vibrator RE-54-8 generates motion at low noise levels.


Mining tools, such as conical bits, roof bits, flats radials, etc., have

evolved over the years. Currently, these tools consist of cobalt-

bonded, tungsten carbide bits brazed to steel shanks. When proper-

ly processed, long-lasting tools are produced which combine great

strength, toughness and high hardness.

Early coal mining tools were made of steel, eventually leading to

different types of hardened steel. Then came the carbide revolu-

tion, which began in the 1920s, but really took off after World War

II. The earliest tools with cemented carbide bits increased the life-

time of rock drills by at least a factor of 10 over steel-based drills.

With improvements in cemented carbide technology, this advan-

tage has increased.

Cemented carbides, or hard metals as they are also called, are

produced by cementing ultra-hard tungsten carbide (WC) grains

in a binder matrix of cobalt metal by liquid-phase sintering. The

high solubility of WC in cobalt at elevated temperature and the

excellent wetting of WC by the liquid cobalt results in superior

densification during liquid-phase sintering, and a pore-free struc-

ture. As a result, material is produced which combines great

strength, toughness, high hardness and wear resistance, and is

also readily brazed, which is not the case for pure tungsten car-

bide. The high hardness is necessary for the tools to function

effectively in their working environment. While the various vari-

eties of coal are generally soft, many of the associated minerals are

abrasive, causing excessive wear to metal tools.

Carbide mining tools are produced by a joining process called

brazing, which is a well-established commercial process capable of

producing strong joints. It is widely used in industry because of its

ability to join most metallic materials, including dissimilar metals.

The American Welding Society (AWS) defines brazing as a group of

joining processes that cause the coalescence of materials in the

presence of a brazing filler metal that has a liquidus temperature

above 840°F/450°C, but below the solidus temperature of the base

materials. The filler metal is distributed between the closely fitted

faying surfaces of the joint by capillary action. The term brazing

temperature refers to the temperature to which a material assem-

blage is heated to enable the filler metal to spread and adhere to or

wet the joining metals.

The mining tool parts to be brazed are the steel shank and the

cemented carbide bit. The most common brazing filler alloys used

are shown in Table 1. These melt in the temperature range suitable

for joining of the tools. All three contain manganese, in addition to

nickel, copper and other minor constituents. Manganese is impor-

tant for bonding to cemented carbides. The most common form for

the filler metal is a flat coupon or shim, which is placed between the

steel and the cemented carbide at the bottom of the formed pocket.

Sometimes, additional alloy wire is added to the upper part of the

carbide at peak temperature for additional strength.

Prior to final assembly the carbide bits are coated with flux, by

putting them in containers filled with water-based flux. The coated

bits are then placed on top of the alloy shims within the formed

pocket. Recently a new dispensing machine has become available

specifically for water-based flux; this allows precise and automated

deposits up to 3,600 per hour. The system provides superior resis-

tance to high abrasive constituents, and maintains the flux in opti-

mal condition. Just such a system provides the user with a

successful alternative to petroleum-based product.

o p e r at i n g i d e a s

Brazing of Carbide Mining Tools


A miner changes conical bits on a continuous miner. (Photo courtesy of Kennametal)

B Y D R . Y E H U D A B A S K I N

Cemented carbide bits are brazed to a steel shank. (Photo courtesy of Kennametal)

Table 1: Filler Alloys Used in Mining Tools

Composition

Aloy %Ni %Cu %Mn %Zn Solidus Liquidus

Nicuman 23 9.00 67.50 23.50 — 1,700°F/925°C 1,750°F/955°C

Nicuman 37 9.50 52.50 38.00 -— 1,573°F/855°C 1,680°F/915°C

Alloy 548 6.00 55.00 4.00 35.00 1,620°F/880°C 1,691°F/920°C


The fluxes designed for mining tools are water-based, high-tem-

perature brazing paste products, two of which are shown below.

Flux Type Active Temperature RangeWhite Paste Flux 1,400°F/760°C - 2,100°F/1160°C

Boron-Modified Paste Flux 1,400°F/760°C - 2,250°F/1230°C

Both fluxes work exceptionally well in this application, and are per-

fectly matched with the filler alloys used. The white flux performs

best on smaller tools, while the boron-modified flux works well on

larger tools, owing to its ability to withstand higher temperatures

and longer heating cycles. Fluxes are essential when joining metals

in ambient air. Filler metals only wet clean metallic surfaces, and

flux facilitates this.

When heated, fluxes perform five critical tasks:

1) Dissolve or react with surface metal oxides;

2) Protect the cleaned surfaces against re-oxidation;

3) Help transfer heat from the heat source to the joint;

4) Lower the surface tension of the filler metals and the joining sur-

faces; and

5) Remove surface oxides, allowing the filler metal to flow and wet

the joining surfaces.

Finally, when all of the parts are properly arranged within the

pocket, the tools are set on a conveyor system, which moves them

slowly into the heat zone. Induction heating is the preferred

method for brazing the mining tools, and is done in ambient air.

Brazing temperatures in the range 1,900°F/1,047°C –

2,100°F/1,140°C are used. Various techniques are employed to

make sure that optimum bonding occurs between the steel shanks

and the carbide bits. Excellent wetting is a necessary pre-requisite

for achieving the tool strength needed for prolonged operation.

After heating, the brazed tools are generally quenched in water.

Flux residues either come off in the quenching process or when

the tools receive their final cleaning.

Dr. Baskin is president and technical director for Superior Flux &

Mfg., which is based in Cleveland, Ohio. He can be reached at 440-

349-3000 (Email: [email protected]).

AcknowledgmentThe writer gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Dr. Jonathan

Baskin.

o p e r a t i n g i d e a s c o n t i n u e d


Miners also rely heavily on carbide bits for roof drilling. (Photo courtesy of Kennametal)



Based in Fort Wayne, Ind., Deister Machine Co., Inc. is celebrat-

ing its 100th anniversary as a leading manufacturer of high-qual-

ity feeding, scalping and screening equipment. Deister has

remained a family-owned business since its founding in 1912.

“We continue to build upon our century of service via solid

engineering and customized screening solutions that allow

operators to efficiently meet the most stringent specifications,”

said Deister Chairman and Co-CEO Irwin F. Deister Jr., who

recently marked 60 years of service with the company. Irwin and

E. Mark Deister, president and co-CEO, represent the family’s

third generation at the company’s helm. The company’s dedica-

tion to the industry began with their grandfather, Emil Deister,

the company’s founder.

In the early 1900s, Emil Deister took up the study of ore sep-

aration; and eventually, he would patent his own equipment,

starting with a centrifugal separator that extracted gold from

mercury amalgam, and continuing on to develop ore separating

tables. His table is praised in Taggart’s Handbook of Ore

Dressing, the official textbook at many mining schools, as the

first serious competition to the only other kind of ore separating

table available at the time.

Emil established his business in 1906 as the Deister

Concentrator Co. In 1912, Emil sold his interests in Deister

Concentrator Co. and established Deister Machine Co., Inc.

Deister Machine Co. began manufacturing operations at its

current location. The original building, a 5,500 sq-ft plant, is still

in active use amid a total operation that today spans more than

360,000 sq ft and four plant locations in Fort Wayne. Its line of

equipment includes heavy-duty inclined screens, high-speed

screens, horizontal screens, dewatering screens, and vibrating

feeders and grizzlies. Additionally, Deister recently introduced

its new Ultra-Fines Recovery System, as well as its new line of

Deister Premium Portable Screening Plants.

Deister equipment is in operation in all 50 states, Canada,

and in many countries throughout Latin America, as well as

Europe, Asia and Australia. According to its engineers, Deister

equipment is designed to integrate with all components of the

production system, while delivering maximum performance

and productivity. In fact, some of the earlier models of Deister

vibrating screens are still in operation due to their rugged con-

struction and continued high efficiency.

Additionally, Deister Machine supports its industry by being

active participants in a variety of key organizations. Today,

Irwin F. Deister Jr. and E. Mark Deister are life members of the

NSSGA board, both having served as chairman of its

Manufacturers and Services (M & S) Division. In the recent past,

Deister Vice President of Marketing and Sales Joe Schlabach

served as the chairman of M & S Division.

McLanahan Launches New WebsiteEasy to navigate and designed with the focus to support its cus-

tomers worldwide best describes the new McLanahan Corp. web-

site: www.mclanahan.com. The redesigned site reflects the

company’s new corporate look. The website’s user-friendly nature

provides viewers with more efficient access to information regard-

ing equipment lines, upcoming events, corporate representatives

and more.

The website is divided into six main areas representing the

industries that McLanahan serves: Mineral Processing,

Aggregate Processing, Sampling Systems, Agricultural Systems,

Polymers, and Foundry and Machining. The new features of the

website include photo galleries, representative locators, videos,

animated/still drawings and a McLanahan apparel catalog.

Additionally, visitors are now able to quickly access information

about upcoming news and events, sign-up for a company e-

newsletter, and gain access to its social media sites.

“We are very excited about the launch of the website. The

new design and the interactive features will appeal to our cur-

rent customers and will also allow new customers to be educat-

ed on the equipment and systems that McLanahan is able to

provide as well as expand on the capabilities and continuous

innovations that our company has to offer,” said Sean

McLanahan, CFO, McLanahan.

Bridgestone Americas Establishes Mining Tire Business UnitBridgestone Americas Tire Operations announced the formation of

an integrated mining tire business unit and the reorganization of the

Bridgestone Commercial Group. The new business unit, Bridgestone

Mining Solutions, combines all mining tire sales, service and sales

engineering, as well as a select group of U.S. and Canadian stores,

into one integrated structure. Shawn Rasey will lead the new organi-

zation as vice president, Bridgestone Mining Solutions.

“We are very excited to begin this new chapter with our mining

tire business,” said Kurt Danielson, president, Bridgestone

Commercial Solutions. “The formation of Bridgestone Mining

Solutions will allow us to enhance our mining offerings and be

more responsive to our mining customers’ needs.”

ABB Integrates Mincom as Ventyx Ventyx, an ABB company, recently completed the organizational

integration of Mincom, a leading supplier of enterprise asset and

work management software, following the company’s acquisition

s u p p l i e r s n e w s

Deister Machine Celebrates 100 Years


Standing, from left to right: Joe Schlabach, vice president of marketing and sales; Greg

Wood, vice president of manufacturing and production; Dale Loshe, vice president of

engineering; Richard Deister, vice president of customer relations. Seated, from left to

right: Irwin F. Deister, Jr, chairman; E. Mark Deister, president.

http://www.mclanahan.com


last year. The new organization merges the complementary tech-

nologies of three market-leading businesses, Ventyx, Mincom and

ABB Network Control, under ABB.

“Going forward we are strongly positioned to lead the industrial

enterprise software market, which will be mission critical for essen-

tial industries in achieving real-time communication and enterprise-

wide system management to enhance reliability, efficiency and

productivity,” said Jens Birgersson, CEO, Ventyx. “The powerful

capabilities brought together in the new Ventyx portfolio will help

our customers to effectively address strategic initiatives such as the

smart grid, e-mobility, mining and logistics, and new legislation

around safety and cyber security.”

Under one banner, Ventyx will deliver a number of advantages

for customers:

• A broader breadth and depth of solutions and services;

• An expanded global footprint, with increased presence in all

major markets worldwide;

• Comprehensive solutions addressing the full range of core

asset-intensive industries;

• A better model of enterprise business

solutions, one that takes a whole-sys-

tems approach to enterprise asset

health; and

• Increased integration between infor-

mation and operational technologies.

“The Ventyx organization combines

more than 120 years of collective experience

in delivering enterprise solutions to asset-

intensive organizations, and a combined

portfolio offering an unparalleled range of

innovative solutions for our customers,” said Birgersson. “Having

completed the organizational integration of Mincom, Ventyx moves

forward this year as a unified, cohesive operation across all key

functions worldwide—including sales, customer support, R&D,

product management and managed services.”

Eriez Reports Records for Orders & Shipments Tim Shuttleworth, Eriez president and CEO, said the company’s

Erie, Pa., headquarters facility closed 2011 with more than $100

million in orders while Eriez-Japan, the company’s affiliate in

Japan, finished the year with more than $1 billion yen or US$12

million in shipments.

“It’s been a banner year for Eriez across the globe,” said

Shuttleworth. “In addition to exceptional sales and shipment

numbers from Eriez HQ and Eriez-Japan, all Eriez divisions

showed strong performances in 2011. For the first time in our his-

tory, we have exceeded our previous record year worldwide by

more than 40%.”

Increased demand in 2011 prompted Eriez to expand its opera-

tions in five countries. Eriez purchased an additional building in

Erie, approximately 15 miles from its World Headquarters.

Internationally, the company is also expanding in Canada, China,

India and the United Kingdom.

“Eriez is known around the world for unmatched customer ser-

vice and cutting-edge product offerings,” said Shuttleworth. “As we

enter 2012, our 70th year in business, we foresee ongoing growth

through our continued dedication to investing in new products and

technologies for the many industries we serve. We also plan an

increased emphasis on customer training and education through

our Orange University Mobile Education Resource Center.”

s u p p l i e r s n e w s c o n t i n u e d


Jens Birgersson.


A safe, strong, tight-sealing ventilation-con-

trol man door is reducing personnel risk,

maintenance work and energy costs in a

growing number of mines. Designed and

built by mining-industry veterans, the

patented Zero Man Door stands up to con-

vergence and heaving that cause conven-

tional mine doors to leak, warp and jam.

“These things are solid as a rock,” said

Western Pennsylvania Mine Foreman Larry

Cassidy. He has installed hundreds of Zero

doors at CONSOL Energy’s Bailey mine in

Wind Ridge, Pa. “Ventilation leakage was

costing us a lot,” Cassidy said. “Now our air-

flow is better than it’s ever been, and we’re

saving money on maintenance. Zero doors

seal tightly, stay tight and don’t have to be

replaced as often as other doors.”

According to Allan Bunner, vice presi-

dent, Zero Man Door in Pittsburgh, the

Zero design is a response to real-life chal-

lenges. “We spent months talking to mine

operators, ventilation people and individ-

ual miners. They showed us mine doors

that folded up under pressure, were diffi-

cult and dangerous to operate, and wasted

air and energy.”

“We engineered a whole new solu-

tion, from the ground up.” The result, he

said, is the toughest man door, with

heavy, galvanized, 10-gauge steel-tube

frames and 16-gauge door panels. In the

field, our customers are seeing much

higher reliability and productivity, and

much less downtime,” said Bunner

Standard Zero safety features include

rolled door edges that won’t snag skin,

clothes or equipment; high-visibility warn-

ing reflectors; and an exclusive auto-closing

mechanism that eliminates slamming and

keeps body parts out of harm’s way. For safe

travel between high- and low-pressure

spaces, each door is equipped with a built-

in equalizer port to minimize air-control

disruption. The port doubles as a conve-

nient rock-dusting access point.

“Our simple, modular design makes

installation a snap,” said Bunner. “Using

one simple tool, one or two men can

assemble several doors in a single shift.

For maximum flexibility, our standard

sizes range from 30- x 30-inches to 48- x

60-inches—all with adjustable frames that

fit 6-inch, 8-inch, and thicker stoppings.

“Zero doors seal better,” Bunner said.

“With sure-tight latching handles and extra-

durable fiberglass gaskets, they keep venti-

lation air where it belongs, more reliably

than conventional doors can.”

www.zeromandoor.com

Chain Monitoring SystemStrainstall Marine, a UK-based load cell

manufacturer, has launched a new sys-

tem for monitoring the tension in chains

used for longwall mining systems. It pro-

vides operators with data on the tensions

in the chains, and should the loads reach

pre-set limits, the system has the facility

to decrease/increase tension in the

chain, generate alarms to warn operators

to take corrective action before any

breakdown occurs or stop the conveyor.

“Operators no longer have to worry

about chain overloading and potential sys-

tem failure, which has the additional benefit

of providing significant cost savings from

both improved operation and increased

chain life,” said Adrian Coventry, engineer-

ing director, Strainstall. “Also, as it uses our

load cells and pins that have many years of

proven use in harsh environments, they are

can be assured our system will provide long

term, hassle-free operation.”

The system uses Strainstall load pins or

compressive load cells to measure the ten-

sion in the armored face conveyor chain.

Specifically designed to operate in extreme

temperatures and resistant to high moisture

levels, abrasive materials and vibration,

both the load pins and load cells are idea for

use in the harsh conditions found under-

ground. The load pins are also resistant to

the effects of metal fatigue, a condition

caused by being subjected to repeated

cyclic loads. www.strainstallmarine.com

Intrinsically Safe RadiosThe Kenwood TK-2360/3360 portable

radio will now has an Intrinsically Safe (IS)


p r o d u c t n e w s

Man Doors Keep Mine Air Where It Belongs

The new Zero Man Door is a tight-sealing vetilation conrol man door that reduces personnel risk, mainte-

nance work and energy costs.

http://www.zeromandoor.com

http://www.strainstallmarine.com


option. The new KNB-40LCV IS battery is

an IS-certified 1950 mAh Lithium Ion bat-

tery for use with the TK-2360/3360 hand

held radios with the IS option.

www.kenwoodusa.com

Wireless Gateway Access PointLaird Technologies has released its new

APG BT W400 wireless access point gate-

way. The new gateway is ideal for M2M

wireless communications and for connect-

ing Bluetooth enabled devices in a Personal

Area Network to IP network via Ethernet or

WLAN interface. It offers four class 1 BT

modules, Ethernet and WLAN communica-

tion as a standard package. Built on an

embedded Linux operating system, the

device supports application development

and customization using Lua scripting lan-

guage and optional support for Python,

and Java. www.lairdtech.com

Multi-Use TiresThe new Double Coin REM-15 all-steel

radial off-road tires for designed specifical-

ly for loaders and large graders. “Double

Coin has designed the REM-15 to offer low-

er operating costs without compromise in

performance,” said Aaron Murphy, vice

president, China Manufacturers Associa-

tion. The REM-15 is engineered with a wide

footprint offering excellent traction, flota-

tion and ride. It is currently offered in the

17.5R25 size, but will be expanded to larger

sizes in the future. It is eligible for the stan-

dard Double Coin ROTR warranty.

www.doublecoin-us.com/dealers

Minibar Warning LightsECCO’s 5585 Reflex Class I LED minibars

provide a compact yet powerful warning

solution that offers the flexibility of either

permanent or vacuum-magnet mounting.

Featuring 12-24 VDC operation, the 5585

Series uses high intensity LEDs and reflec-

tive technology to maximize light output.

Users can select from 18 flash patterns,

either via trigger wire on permanent mount

models or cigarette plug switch on magnet-

ic models. Permanent mount models can

also be synchronized to operate multiple

lights alternately or simultaneously. The

5585 meets SAE J595 Class I and California

Title 13 requirements and has a three-year

warranty. www.eccolink.com

p r o d u c t n e w s c o n t i n u e d


http://www.kenwoodusa.com

http://www.lairdtech.com

http://www.doublecoin-us.com/dealers

http://www.eccolink.com



COAL PREPARATION CONSULTANTS AND SERVICES

CONSULTANTS AND SERVICES

TARGET YOUR MARKET WITH

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING!

For more information contact:

Norm Rose at(770) 664-0608 or

[email protected]

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING VISIT WWW.COALAGE.COM



http://WWW.COALAGE.COM


CONSULTANTS AND SERVICES

Specializing in Preparation Plant and Material

Handling Design for the Coal and Aggregate

Industries, maintenance and upgrade of

existing systems, emergency projects and

"turn key" installations.

ROCK & COAL CONSTRUCTION, INC.

P.O. BOX 1457

CRAB ORCHARD, WV 25827

Phone: 304-683-5600 / Fax: 304-683-5601

E-mail: [email protected]

One Source Solution for All YourIndustrial Electrical Contracting Needs

“Leader in Industrial Electrical Design &

Installation That Constantly Exceeds Customer

Expectations in Quality and Performance”

Ashland, KentuckyPhone: 606/928-2074 Fax:606/928-0093

www.cwelectricinc.com

SILOS - STACKING TUBES

New construction, repairs & inspections

419-294-5609 419-294-6963 fax

www.san-con.com

e-mail: [email protected]

Make an Impactwith Professional Industrial Photography & Media

Specializing In Undergroundand Mining Images

Please contact Lee Buchsbaum: lee@lmbphotography

303.746.8172 (cell) • 303.993.7290 (office)

www.lmbphotography.com

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING

VISIT WWW.COALAGE.COM

TARGET YOUR MARKET WITH

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING!


Norm Rose at

(770) 664-0608 or

[email protected]

GO TO WWW.COALAGE.COM



http://www.cwelectricinc.com

http://www.san-con.com


http://www.lmbphotography.com




FOR SALE

ADVERTISING INDEX

PAGE

Blastcrete Equipment Co ............................................................................................21

Caterpillar ..................................................................................................................11

Coal Handling & Storage 2012 ..............................................................................34-35

Coal Prep 2012............................................................................................................41

Derrick Corp ................................................................................................................47

Eickhoff......................................................................................................................2-3

Elgin Equipment Group/Tabor......................................................................................13

Henry Repeating Arms ................................................................................................37

Huesker ......................................................................................................................25

Inpro/Seal Co ..............................................................................................................BC

Jennmar ....................................................................................................................IBC

Joy Mining Machinery ..................................................................................................27

Komatsu ........................................................................................................................9

L&H Industrial ............................................................................................................15

Longwall Associates ....................................................................................................19

McLanahan..................................................................................................................17

Minasco ......................................................................................................................45

MINExpo 2012..............................................................................................................43

MTU ............................................................................................................................39

P&H Mining ................................................................................................................IFC

Polydeck Screen ..........................................................................................................33

Samson........................................................................................................................32

Social Media Connections............................................................................................51

United Mining..............................................................................................................49

Weir Slurry Group ..........................................................................................................5


This index is provided as an additional service. The publisher does not assume liability for errors or omissions.

TARGET YOUR MARKET WITH CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING!

Norm Rose at(770) 664-0608 or

[email protected]


HELP WANTED

GO TO WWW.COALAGE.COM




During the last three years, the Secretary of

Labor has lived up to her self-described “new

cop on the street” persona. Industry readers

have not been surprised to see that enforce-

ment and penalties at MSHA and OSHA have

increased significantly. What may be shocking,

however, is the expansion of MSHA and OSHA’s

power through “executive fiat” by all levels of

the agencies, and by their inspectors in the

field. No better example exists than MSHA’s recent abuse of its clo-

sure order powers.

Since created by the 1977 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act,

closure orders applied only to areas affected by the violation or haz-

ard involved as described by the statute. Even when issued to close

specific affected areas, MSHA closure orders have always permitted

mine operator personnel to enter in order to evaluate and abate the

conditions identified by the orders. Such entry is allowed under the

Act. Under MSHA’s new view of its power, these restrictions on clo-

sure orders no longer apply, which has created vastly difficult oper-

ating circumstances, risks of massive and irreparable harm, and even

serious safety and health risks never intended by the statute.

Two recent examples illustrate the MSHA power grab, its illegali-

ty, and the new MSHA’s lack of logic, expertise and enforcement

“above all” approach. In MSHA’s history, prior to 2011, in the rare

instance when a roof fall in a mine resulted in a closure order, the

closure order was limited to the immediate area affected by the fall.

Moreover, only certain roof falls were deemed immediately

reportable to MSHA, likely because they unfortunately are more

common in underground mines, and also because they are often

intentionally caused by normal mine operations such as blasting or

scaling to improve roof conditions. These immediately reportable

falls—“accidents”—as defined by MSHA, impeded passage or venti-

lation, caused injury or death, or occurred above the anchorage zone

of roof bolts. In turn, these “accidents” triggered MSHA closure order

authority under Section 103(k) of the Mine Act.

Recently, MSHA changed its interpretation and issued a Section

103(k) closure order for an entire mine under the theory that if a roof

fall occurred at a particular location, the operator could not guaran-

tee that it would not fall somewhere else and cause a serious injury

or death.

This power grab resulted in expanded closure for even a non-

reportable roof fall, which did not cause injury, was not above the

anchorage zone, and did not impede passage or ventilation. In fact,

the fall occurred during scaling with a protected mechanical scaler,

including a reinforced operator cab, in a remote area where a miner

was intentionally trying to bring down what he perceived to be a

potentially loose roof.

MSHA demanded the mine install bolt and mesh everywhere

as a condition of re-opening the mine, even though it had a 60-

year history of safe conditions without bolting and meshing in

miles of entries, and had a roof control plan approved by MSHA

requiring bolts and mesh to be used only as needed in identified

areas. Experts with extensive experience in the geological condi-

tions that MSHA demanded created unneeded risks by excessive

roof drilling, but those views were rejected. Instead, MSHA relied

on its own self proclaimed “expert” who had no experience what-

soever in similar mines or geological conditions and had never

seen or inspected the roof fall that caused the mine closure.

Ironically, the Administrative Law Judge vacated the MSHA cita-

tion for an alleged violation of the ground control regulatory man-

date issued in conjunction with the roof fall and the order, yet the

mine is still prevented from production even though there was no

violation of law.

At the time this article was written, the mine was forced to limit

its operations to the installation of bolts and mesh for the previous

90 days while it awaited the decision of a U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals on its challenge to the Closure Order and its request for a

modification of the Order, which the Administrative Law Judge and

the Review Commission upheld, stating, contrary to established law,

they did not have the authority to modify it. While getting before a

circuit court of appeals in less than 90 days on an enforcement chal-

lenge may have set a record, it is no consolation to the operator

whose mine remains closed and whose rights have been trampled

upon by the “new cop on the street.”

This is not the only example of MSHA expanding and abusing

its closure order authority and application. A methane reading in

one mine section resulted in the entire mine closure of a large,

multi section coal mine, regardless of the fact that the methane

was immediately rendered harmless by ventilation and carried

away. Subsequent readings were within limits and the rest of the

mine did not experience any methane blips and recorded normal,

effective ventilation.

So what is to be done? One approach heard occasionally is to not

challenge MSHA because the agency may “get mad” and the situa-

tion worse. We disagree. We believe that those who accept illegal

MSHA enforcement will be treated like a kid surrendering to a bully,

and invite more bullying. Instead, we believe legal contests of ques-

tionable MSHA enforcement actions, combined with political efforts

to inform friendly members of Congress of the abuse and seek their

assistance, are worth the effort. We also believe that combined legal

and political strategies present real opportunities for winning and

demonstrating that a company will not simply agree to illegal clo-

sures, making MSHA and its inspectors reluctant to act illegally again

at the same mine or company.

Moreover, challenges to questionable closure orders can limit

losses resulting from the orders; particularly if expedited and emer-

gency hearings are held forcing MSHA to prove quickly that they act-

ed legally and correctly, a difficult burden for the “new cop on the

street” who ignores the law and acts irrationally, without sound engi-

neering and safety rationales. Of course, there are never guarantees

of winning in the legal or political forums, but from our perspective

it’s the only strategy that makes sense until there is yet another “new

cop” on the beat, with a better sense of the law and real expertise in

the industry they are regulating.

Chajet is a partner with Patton Boggs LLP. He can be reached at

202-457-6511 or by e-mail [email protected].


l e ga l ly s p e a k i n g

B Y H E N R Y C H A J E T

MSHA Stretches the Law and Expands

Mine Closure Orders



PPCO Twist System - Coal Age

Documents

Transcript of PPCO Twist System - Coal Age