Search Documents

By Wm. Monay

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when made are on the books to stay, even though in a short time they may prove inapplicable, in whole or in part, or be superseded by something different, and which in some cases create new dangers or lull us into a false sense of security.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

Jan 1, 1925

[ ]

Jan 1, 2000

By Scott Jones

New Mexico Coal Operations ?San Juan, La Plata, And Navajo Mines ?Three Sites 100% Owned By BHP Billiton ?San Juan And La Plata Mines Owned/Operated By San Juan Coal Co. Supplies Coal To San Juan Generating Station ?Navajo Mine Located On Navajo Nation Lands Supplies Coal To Four Corners Power Station

Jan 1, 2008

By Glen A. Knox

The writer has been asked to set forth for this Institute, the experience of the past eleven months in the mining operation conducted at Sweetwater Mine in which coal has been produced by the use of Link-Belt Conveyors on long faces. The coal in this mine has an average of six feet three inches in thickness, and lies on an average pitch of five degrees. The roof is a sandy shale of medium hardness and has been generally considered as good top in the room and pillar method of mining. When our company became interested in conveyors, the writer visited most all of the mines in the East where conveyors and other mechanical methods of mining were in use and decided that the modified method of w-hat is in use at the Norton-West Virginia mine would be the most feasible for our conditions. We in- stalled three hundred feet of conveyor as an experiment to see whether or not our roof could be handled and taken care of on long faces. This three hundred feet was installed as two separate conveyors, one as a face conveyor-100 feet in length, the other as a heading conveyor that delivered the coal into the mine car on the main entry. This face was worked directly on .the strike and down the pitch. This did not prove to be a success as the caving of the roof carried over to the working face and necessitated propping between the conveyor and the face and it was also necessary to shovel coal on the conveyor up the pitch. After working out this block, 200 feet in length, we installed these two conveyors at a place adjoining this worked out block, but on a half V shape shown on the sketch. This block of coal was sixty feet wide. This method proved to be very successful. We cut a place, moved the conveyor against the face before shooting and carried two rows of cribs between the conveyor and the cave, and caved the roof every second cut. After working out this block we were satisfied that this system was feasible with our mine. We then ordered twelve hundred feet more of the same type as the trial conveyor with the exception of a very few modifications. We then installed this fifteen hundred foot unit on the four faces shown on the sketch, with one hundred feet to each face, two hundred feet on each heading and three hundred feet on the main conveyor that delivered the coal into the pit cars. We also had a head and rear section for each of the four advancing places shown on the sketch. As the sections were taken out of the heading conveyors they were installed on the advancing conveyors, and when the faces approached the main conveyor, the main conveyor was taken out and installed in the next uphill or main conveyor place. The roof caved very well in line of the points and was broken about every twenty feet. It broke in a straight line and did not curve at each V. We encountered no trouble unless we permitted one of the points to get behind. The maximum tonnage possible to be produced on this method was estimated to be seven hundred and twenty-five tons a day, assuming that all places were cut and cleaned up in one shift, and this we did for several consecutive days. While this was a success from a cost standpoint, we felt that we could

Jan 1, 1925

[Page Vernal Mortensen, RMCMI President 1982-1983 2 RMCMI Officers 1982-1983 4 Treasurer's Report 198 1-82 5 Remembrance of Deceased Members 6 Roster of Advertisers 7 President Ira E. McKeever's Address 9 1982 New Member Listing 10 "Which Shall it be - Pity or Pride?" Keynote Address, Dr. William S. Banowsky 17 "Don't Desert the American Dream - Fulfill it!" Carl Terzian 22 "The Image of the Coal Industry" Symposium, Charles W. Margolf, Chairman 33 The Honorable Michael Enzi 34 Harris D. Sherman 38 Robert Golten 40 Ralph Looney 43 "Sure You Have an Image - But What Kind?", Carl Terzian 46 Resolutions 77 Advertisements 79 Acknowledgment, Appointment 111 Invitation to 1983 RMCMI Meeting 112]

Jan 1, 1982

By Jeane Hull

Jan 1, 2009

Outline ? Overview ? Existing Operations ? Mine Planning ? Future Trends ? Market Impacts ? Conclusions

Jan 1, 2006

By J. A. Bullington

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Some of you men may know who are familiar with what we have been doing in the C. F. & I. the last three years, that we have revamped our entire method of cost accounting from the pit bosses' report through to the final report of the president. The basic ideas involved in our cost system are not ours. They were given us by one of the best management and industrial engineering concerns in the country-at least they have that reputation. All I can do now is to try to pass on to you some of the ideas we have from various sources and the methods we have used in teaching those ideas to our coal men on cost accounting. This will not be a technical paper. I tried to put it in language we could all understand, and I hope I will be talking the same language that you gentlemen talk when you think about the cost of your coal in your own mines. Accounting of all kinds is classed as overhead expense, and as overhead expense we must justify its cost by the service it gives the rest of the organization. That brings us up to the problem of making the cost department pay its own way, just the same as the power plant has to pay its own way, and we have gotten away from the old idea of cost accounting in that it is sufficient within itself. The cost sheets are only so good as they enable the operating man to reduce his costs. The cost sheets are only just so much work for the cost department, and if they do not help the operating man to control his costs, we figure that is so much work wasted. The cost department works for the operating department.

Jan 1, 1931

By Cole A. Wist

?Twowinters ago, what had been a mediocre safety record at West Virginia?s Sago Mine grew dramatically worse. Over 23 months beginning in February 2004, two dozen miners were hurt in a string of accidents, some of them caused by rock chunks falling from the mine ceiling. Federal safety inspectors slapped the mine with citations 273 times, or an average of once every 2 ½ days. Despite this record, the price paid by Sago?s operators was light. Government regulators never publicly discussed shutting down themine and never sought criminal sanctions. The biggest single fine was $440, about 0.0004 percent of the $110 million net profit reported last year by the mine?s current owner.? -Washington Post, January 8, 2006

Jan 1, 2006

By D. Harrington

Discussion was prepared by A. L. Jones and Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, read by Mr. Jones; by C. B. Officer, of the Sullivan Machinery Company, read by Mr. J. H. Emrick; by Mr. D. C. McKeehan, Chief Electrician of the Union Pacific Coal Company; and by Mr. L. C. Ilsley, of the United States Bureau of Mines, read by Mr. K. P. Marshall. Their prepared answers are inserted in the body of Mr. Harrington's paper, as answers to his questions. Introductory Remarks PRESIDENT MARKS: We have made special assignments for the discussion of this paper, and I believe these discussions are to be answered in sections, and as the different sections are read applying to this paper, we will just have a brief discussion on that particular point and proceed to the next and try and expedite this discussion as much as possible, be- cause I realize a good many of you have something to say. The first discussion is by Mr. Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, Salt Lake City. MR. F. A. RANK (General Electric Company, Salt Lake City, Utah) : Mr. Chairman, while my name has been put on the program as being the one to discuss this paper, I believe Mr. Jones of our company has prepared a discussion on it, and therefore will let him talk in my place. MR. A. L. JONES: I think that it is passing the buck. However, Mr. Rank sent me a copy of the paper, and I read it over with a good deal of interest. There is one thing I want to say: Mr. Shubart, in his breezy letters, stated this paper was to be written by Mr. Harrington, assisted by a number of manufacturing and operating companies, among them the General Electric Company. We did not function. The paper was completed, and we were not consulted, and I believe that is true of the others. After reading the paper over, I dictated a few notes which I want to read, to give you the view-point that we have on the subject We do not want to minimize electrical dangers, or in any way slow down high-grade construction maintenance, but there is such a thing as overstating the case. A. L. Jones, Engineer, General Electric Co., Denver, Colo. Mr. Harrington's paper in some ways pleases me very much, but in others gives me quite a different sensation. It is so full of condemnation of most existing practices and conditions that it reminds me somewhat of the nerve-racked mother who sent an older brother to see what Willie was doing and to tell him to "stop it." His recital of electrical dangers is harrowing and if I felt it were a true picture I should feel that any of us having anything to do with the recommending or selling of electrical equipment for mines would be party to a crime. Fortunately all mines are not gaseous nor is all dust explosive or we

Jan 1, 1926

By James J. Bryja

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

Jan 1, 2008

By J. Kendall Hales

Jan 1, 2005

By A. C. Watts

The question of disposition of the slack and dust so troublesome to coal mine operators of the West has been divided by your committee chairman into three heads, viz: The preparation and transportation of fine and powdered coal. The developments along the line of low heat carbonization. The uses to which fine and pulverized coal have been put. The development of low heat carbonization has been assigned to me. This is really not a part of the subject but as it has a most important bearing on the future use of coal, I presume the chairman thought best to include it. An English committee on smoke abatement makes the statement that the burning of raw coal is "dirty, wasteful and unscientific". I will go a step further and characterize it as an "economic crime." It has been predicted by eminent scientific men that eventually no raw coal will be burned for heat or power purposes. All this will take time, experimentation and large expenditure, but it will surely come. The question of disposition of slack and dust so troublesome to coal and utilization of its by-products has been retarded by the abundance and cheapness of the raw coal, and by the abundance of suitable coking coals for metallurgical purposes. But necessity is surely, if slowly, demanding that the enormous waste ensuing from the burning of raw coal for heat and power must cease. For instance, smoke abatement investigations in Manchester, England, showed that the increased cost of household washing was about $1,250,000 per year due to smoke and soot. It is estimated that in London 200 tons of soot and smoke particles are suspended in the atmosphere over that city during dense fogs and that much more than this is emitted from the chimneys each winter day during the forenoon. As an example of what benefits a smokeless fuel gives, it is cited that in the mill town of Shaw, England, the burning of smokeless fuels in the factories has reduced the so-called fogs by about 80%. Necessity, caused by the war led Germany into the field of low tem¬perature carbonization because of the shortage of motor fuel and lubricating

Jan 1, 1922

By D. A. Stout

The Rouse Mine, belonging to the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, earlier known as the Santa Clara Mine, is located at Rouse, Huerfano County, Colorado. Operations at this property started about the year 1899, after the old Rouse mine had been drowned out by a large flow of water coming from the strata underlying the Cameron seam. The present new Rouse mine was opened by a slope on what is familiarly known as the Walsen seam in the Walsenburg district. This slope has an average grade of 12 per cent bearing approximately, south 45 degrees west, and having at the present time a total length of 6300 feet. This seam has an average thickness at that property of five and one-half feet; however, there are sections of the mine where the thickness is from seven to eight feet. The mine has been developed. since the time it was opened on what is known as the Room and Pillar system ; water level entries have been driven right and left off the slope, and in some cases the rooms are driven directly up the pitch; and in other cases entries have been driven with rooms turned on water level courses. The first flow of water of which we have ally record was encountered in 1901 in what was called the "Second West Entry." This flow, however, was small, and did not require the installation of any large pump unit. From 1901 up until 1909 the flow increased normally as the field was developed. In January, 1909, the first large inflow occurred, coming from a break in the seventh west entry, making a total flow at that time of about 500 gallons per minute. This necessitated putting in larger pumps, and the first pump to be installed of the centrifugal type was a 600 gallon Worthington. By the year 1911 the water had increased, due to additional development, until it was found necessary to install an additional 600 gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump. In December, 1912, a break occurred in the eighth west entry, between the fourth and sixth cross entries, making 2000 gallons per minute. This flow decreased after a period of three weeks some 500 gallons, but on account of the quantity of water then being handled at the mine, and in view of the fact that we needed some reserve pumping equipment to take care of these flows, and additional 600-gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump was installed in June, 1913. An the latter part of 1914 a 250 gallon Reese roturbo was installed to take care of the water, which was being made in the lower workings of the slope. We found after the installation of the centrifugal pumps that the water decreased to a certain degree in the uppermost workings. This led us to believe that the field was being drained, more or less, and the head reduced ; however, our ideas in regard to this were again upset in December, 1915, when we encountered a flow in room 6 off the first cross entry on the ninth east entry. This flow was not as large as previous flows had been, but made 200 gallons per minute.

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 2005

[ ] Digital images of the highwall are taken from the spoils bench. Two images of the same highwall segment are are taken from two different locations. The resulting overlapping images are used to create a three-dimensional image of that section of highwall.

Jan 1, 2005

By Jeff Mattern

Topics of Discussion ?Navajo Mine General Information ?Mapping, Photogrammetryand Image Fans ?Planning: Equipment, Control Points, Targets ?Digital Photography ?Software Manipulations: Image Matching, Creating a 3d Image and Triangulation, ?Mapping? Geologic Structure, Data Analysis ?Conclusions ?Other Applications

Jan 1, 2005

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I have every reason to know Mr. Pryde was carrying out some experiment a while ago in some of his mines. He and I had a little correspondence on the question, and I think he may have a word or two to say about it. He has not been on his feet today at all. I will ask Mr. Pryde to tell us what he has to say. MR. PRYDE: I have not very much to say about shooting coal with permissible powder as far as slack is concerned because we are not in the commercial business. All of our coal goes to the railroad and a very large part of it is crushed for use in the stokers of the locomotives. We are on a 100 per cent permissible powder basis and as far as I am able to see, I do not believe that the percentage of slack is increasing with its use. We find it hard to convince our commercial neighbors of this fact because they are naturally very much against increasing their percentage of slack on ac- count of the low price received for this grade of coal. I, personally, believe that where a change is made from black powder to permissible powder the percentage of slack will be increased for a time because the miners have been accustomed to using black powder and they are rather suspicious about going to the permissible powder and I do not believe that we can blame them very much. So the tendency with them is to use too much powder. We have gradually overcome this, although, as I said before, we have not kept close track of the production of slack. However, we try to get as large an amount of lump coal as possible. Broadly speaking, I can say from observation that in my opinion there is very little difference in the percentage of slack with the use of the permissible powder that we have today than there was with the use of black powder. I also get this information from our mine superintendents. Mr. Peterson and the other explosive men have been very helpful to us in the use of permissible powder and I confess I have to take everything back that I said several years ago. At that time I was against permissible powder, particularly on account of the cost, but, with the newer permissible powder, we have gotten the cost down very well. I know today that the cost of permissible powder in the coal mines of the Union Pacific Coal Company is less than when we were using black powder. I know this because of the fact that we kept a record of the number of tons we got with black powder, and the number of tons we get with permissible powder compares very favorably in cost. I know this, too, because of the fact that our employes, except in the first few weeks of using permissible powder, have made no demand upon us for any in- crease ill pay to offset any added cost that might accrue in the use of permissible powder and the fact that they have asked for no increase is very conclusive proof to me that it is not

Jan 1, 1925

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you any maximum length that you make your dust barriers? What I mean by that is, your entries are 10 feet wide, and I believe if I remember right, in your single track entries you had only one dust barrier to cover the full width of the. entry in your double track entries, I believe you had two-I would like to know, have you any maximum length you make these barriers? MR. CHAS. LEGER, ROYAL FUEL CO., UTAH: It is stated that they shouldn't be over 8 feet long to obtain sensitiveness. If they make them over 8 feet they are not as sensitive as they should be. They should be made short for two reasons in order to keep the sagging out and to make them as sensitive as possible. MR. DAN HARRINGTON, U. S. BUREAU OF MINES: I didn't come here to enter into any extended discussion on rock dusting or to discuss in particular the situation at Dawson. At the February meeting at Denver, we made a complete study of this matter. Since that time a report was completed and reported to the Phelps-Dodge Corporation and Mr. Moorhead probably has a copy of it, which can give you more complete information as to what we found. We found that with the adobe dusting that they have done, they had six miles of entry pretty thoroughly dusted and of all the samples we took, at least 95 percent of them showed that not only the floor but the ribs and roof were in such a condition that an explosion could not originate in any part of this entry. In other words, this entry as it was dusted was absolutely protected from ignition and propagation. The adobe they used was of material that was non-combustible. In most instances there was not more than 3 per cent of moisture in it.

Jan 1, 1924

MR. GERALD ALLEY (C 11 i e f Draftsman, C. F. & I. Co.) : This invention is primarily intended to correct anything that goes wrong with the fan and any conditions in your air current underground which do not produce a change in your fan water gauge

Jan 1, 1925