by D Harper · 1985 · Cited by 4 — construction of Big Muskie, a 220-cubic-yard dragline used in Ohio. (See the discussion on p. 25.) The photograph was published in 1969 (Coal Age, v.
65 pages

320 KB – 65 Pages

PAGE – 2 ============
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL STAFF OF GEOLOGICAL JOHN B. PATTON, State MAURICE E. BIGGS, Assistant State MARY BETH FOX, Mineral COAL AND INDUSTRIAL MINERALS SECTION DONALD D. CARR, Geologist and Head CURTIS H. AULT, Geologist and Associate Head DONALD L. EGGERT, Geologist DENVER HARPER, Geologist NANCY R. HASENMUELLER, Geologist WALTER A. HASENMUELLER, Geologist NELSON R. SHAFFER, Geologist DRAFTING AND PHOTOGRAPHY SECTION WILLIAM H. MORAN, Chief Draftsman and Head BARBARA T. HILL, Photographer RICHARD T. HILL, Senior Geological Draftsman ROGER L. PURCELL, Senior Geological Draftsman KIMBERL Y H. SOWDER, Geological Draftsman WILBUR E. STALIONS, Artist-Draftsman EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SECTION JOHN R. HILL, Geologist and Head GEOCHEMISTRY SECTION R. K. LEININGER, Geochemist and LOUIS V. MILLER, Coal MARGARET V. ENNIS, Instrumental JOSEPH G. HAILER, JIM J. JOHNSON, Electronics GEOLOGY SECTION ROBERT H. SHAVER, Paleontologist and Head HENRY H. GRAY, Head Stratigrapher N. K. BLEUER, Glacial Geologist GORDON S. FRASER, Glacial Geologist EDWIN J. HARTKE, Environmental Geologist CARL B. REXROAD, Paleontologist SAMUEL S. FRUSHOUR, Geological Technician GEOPHYSICS SECTION MAURICE E. BIGGS, Geophysicist and Head ROBERT F. BLAKELY, Geophysicist SAMUEL L. RIDDLE, Driller THOMAS CHITWOOD, Geophysical Assistant PETROLEUM SECTION G. L. CARPENTER, Geologist and BRIAN D. KEITH, STANLEY J. KELLER, JOHN A. RUPP, DAN M. SULLIVAN, JERRY R. BURTON, Geological JAMES T. CAZEE, Geological SHERRY CAZEE, Geological PUBLICATIONS SECTION GERALD S. WOODARD, Editor and Head PAT GERTH, Principal Records Clerk BARBARA A. SEMERAU, Senior Records Clerk COVER: The era of colossal midwestern excavating machinery culminated in the construction of Big Muskie, a 220-cubic-yard dragline used in Ohio. (See the discussion on p. 25.) The photograph was published in 1969 (Coal Age, v. 74, no. 12, p. 51) and has been retouched and artistically enhanced by Wilbur E. Stalions.

PAGE – 5 ============
Contents Foreword . Introduction . . .Origin of surface mining .Early surface mining in Indiana .Surface mining in Indiana between the wars Boom conditions in surface mining after World War I Indiana as a foremost producer of surface-mined coal Technologic advances during the 1920’s and 1930’s Increase in dipper capacities Electric power .. Sidewall drilling . . . . . . Liquid-oxygen explosives . Railroad and truck haulage Draglines and scrapers Permanent structures at surface mines Time studies and exploratory drilling Beginning of surface reclamation Recent surface mining in Indiana Growth of surface mining . Giant excavating machinery Shovels .. . Draglines . . Technologic problems with giant machinery Financial and other problems Auxiliary developments . Bucketwheel excavators Rotary drilling Blasting . . Ammonium nitrate-fuel oil explosives (ANFO) Truck haulage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulldozers, scrapers, and hydraulic excavators Radios and aerial mapping . Reclamation and the formation of farm companies Major companies . . Peabody operations in Indiana AMAX operations in Indiana . Old Ben and Black Beauty operations in Indiana Western coal moving eastward Summary . Acknowledgments . . Selected bibliography

PAGE – 6 ============
5 10 15 20 25 Illustra Figure 1 Map showing areas surface mined for coal in Indiana .2 Map showing locations of selected major surface mines in Indiana .3 Horse-drawn slip scoop . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 First steam-powered excavating shovel . · Dredge in the Mission coalfied near Danville, III .. . .6 Handloading coal into mine cars at a surface mine near Danville, · 7 Flooded strip pit . . .8 Preparing coal for loading at the Enos Mine in the · 9 Graph showing annual production of surface-mined coal in Indiana, 1915-82 Smoke billowing from steam-powered stripping and coaMoading shovels at Gasoline-driven shovei used in loading coal into end-dump trucks at a mine near Staunton in 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Vertical chum drills commonly used before the 1950’s to drill overburden 12 Channel-cutting machine and electric drill used in preparing coal for and loading at the Sunlight No.3 Mine in 1928 .. 13 Horizontal, or sidewall, drill in use at the Enos Mine in 1933 . . . . . . . . . 14 Steam-powered shovel loading coal into railroad cars at a surface mine Jackson County, Ill., in 1925 .. surface mine near Boonville in the mid-1930’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Parallel-tandem mining by the Maumee Collieries Co. in the early 1950’s 17 Graph showing the increase in the maximum capacity of dippers from 1910 to 1983 18 Dragline installed at Peabody’s Latta-Dugger Mine in the mid-1960’s . . . . . 19 A 105-cubic-yard shovel in use at the Peabody Coal Co.’s Lynnville Mine Warrick County . View of the interior of Big Muskie . 21 Failed. boom on a 140-cubic-yard shovel in western Kentucky . . . . . 22 View from the operator’s cab of a 150-cubic-yard dragline in the Coal Co. ‘s Ayrshire Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A 176-cubic-yard dragline at the AMAX Coal Co.’s Ayrshire Mine . . . . . . 24 Rotary qrills using oil-well-type drill bits for drilling shotholes in overburden Blasting with ANFO in 1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Shooters loading a 20-pound primer packed in a polyethylene wrapper 27 Tractor-trailer truck being loaded in a pit at the AMAX Coal Co. Ayrshire Mine . 28 Bulldozers and earthmovers removing rock in the intervals between coal seams that are being mined at a small surface mine in Daviess County

PAGE – 8 ============
The Development of Surface Coal in Indiana By DENVER HARPER Foreword Reserves of surface-minable coal in Indiana are a great store of wealth whose exploitation since 1915 has transformed the physical and economic landscape of Indiana’s southwestern counties. In studying the coal resources of Indiana, the Indiana Geological Survey has compiled much engineering, economic, torical, and geologic information on the surface-mining industry. This report is a chronicle of surface mining in Indiana that is based primarily on two sources: publications of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and Coal Age magazine. It is a compilation of more than 11 0 articles-most dealing with mining tices at specific surface mines in spanning 63 years. In this report emphasis is placed on technologic advances that opened new reserves and permitted growth of coal production in the state. Recent events that have affected Indiana’s coal industry, such as the development of unit trains, changes in the structure of the coal industry, and the opening of midwestern markets to western coal, are briefly discussed. Introduction Men have quarried stone and mined ores from open pits for millenia, but surface mining of coal on a large scale is a recent development. Much of the history of large-scale surface mining was made since World War I in the midwestern states of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, where geography makes available large markets for coal, and where geology and topography make possible the use of spread, area-type surface mining. Thickness of the coal seam is an important geologic factor affecting underground mining. The dimensions of underground workings bear a relation to human stature, and problems arise when the seam is too thin or too thick to accommodate workers and the tasks they must perform. But underground mining has the advantage that under ideal conditions only the coal itself is removed, and the costly removal of valueless rock strata above and below the coal is minimized. For most of the history of coal mining in most areas, underground mining prevailed. In Indiana underground mining dominated coal production until the 1930’s, but it has accounted for less than 3 percent of the state’s output in recent years. In surface mining miners remove the rock overlying the coal (called overburden) first, and then they remove the coal in a separate operation. When this method is used, the thickness of the coal seam is less important than it is in underground mining. Rather, it is the ratio of the overburden thickness to the seam thickness that is critical. Very thin seams may be removed if the overburden is thin, and no special problems are created by mining thick coal. Because coal must lie near the surface to be extracted by this method, reserves of surface-minable coal in most major coal-producing areas are small when compared with reserves of underground coal. At present the official estimate of surface-minable coal in Indiana is about 1.8 billion tons, or about 11 percent of total reserves. Successful area-type surface mining quires nearly level terrain and nearly flat lying coal seams so that the thickness of den is almost constant across wide areas. In the important surface-mining districts of Indiana (fig. 1) the land has relatively little relief, and some coal seams of the state are extensive and dip westward at only about 30 feet per mile. Large surface mines are possible under such conditions. For each of the past 1

PAGE – 10 ============
3 INTRODUCTION I I I r-1 I: (‘ I( ,:z lI Ii . ‘I ICllnton/Sunspotl ..Universal l.. ‘-v;l;o -: ClAY L__r r.Chinook J 1Chieftain I N: :J ,-SUlliVAN I I Robin Hood/Friar Tuck ____ Minnehaha_-_ Latta GREENE Dugger _ _ – Linton No. 23, 28 Airline No 32Sullivan No. 27 .. . I ——! KNOX -I 10 o 30 ! Shasta-_ I I I I 10 o 50 Km ( Maid Marian I L _ \l’\D I I I oJ ,..J\ PIKE r -J-,.—1 ,..J No.2-_ Ayrshire No.2 I .” No.5 .-_ Ayrcoe I hI — —. Enos/Old Ben No. l-i-c!:.! –I ‘– r—oJ _ . L,.,.,–.. _ “!–_ Sunlight No. 14 Lynnville, _ -Tecumseh Squaw ICreek -tI Ayrshire ‘i-WARRICK (-Wright. .Vlctona INti Figure 2. Map showing locations of selected major surface mines (active and inactive) in Indiana.

PAGE – 11 ============
———–THE DEVELOPMENT OF SURFACE COAL MINING IN INDIANA 4 Figure 3. Horse-drawn slip scoop, one of several animal-powered forerunners of modern mining machinery. From Wier, 1959, p. 11. 40 years, 10 to 19 large active mines have produced more than two-thirds of the state’s annual surface output. Taken together, the mines shown in figure 2 are the source of about 80 percent of the state’s total cumulative surface output. Large numbers of small mines have contributed the remaining 20 percent. Not only is the thickness of overburden important to surface mining but so is its character. Unconsolidated overburden, such as glacial or stream deposits, is easy to dig, and much early mining was done where such overburden directly overlies the coal. But where it is thick, such overburden may create pro blems of stability of steep slopes within the mine pit. In Indiana large-scale surface mining has been conducted mostly where the unconsolidated overburden is less than 50 feet thick. The character of the consolidated (rock) overburden also influences the ability of surface mining. Thick, strong strata may interfere with preparatory blasting of the overburden and make removal of the blasted material more difficult. Local geologic tures, such as domes, troughs, and faults, may affect maneuverability of digging machines and haulage vehicles and may affect drainage of the pits. Coal seams of Indiana commonly show local doming and troughing, and minor faulting and other seam discontinuities, such as rock partings, commonly have an adverse effect on local mining. Throughout history operators of large-scale surface mines in the midwestern United States have relied on shovels and draglines to remove overburden. The amount and the thickness of overburden that can be removed depend on the size of available shovels and draglines. Because reserves of surface-minable coal that can be mined by any given size of machinery are soon exhausted, the growth of coal production by surface methods has required constant technologic advances that have made available larger machines able to exploit new reserves under greater thicknesses of den. Before 1969 the digging capacity of shovels and draglines almost doubled every 10 years. This growth made possible a great increase in the thickness of overburden that .-. ..—–..-.– -..—..—.

320 KB – 65 Pages