Search Documents

By Steve Griles

Mr. Griles did not make his speech available for reprint. Looking Down the Road: The Environmental Side of the 1990s and Beyond Environmental Social Responsibility Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, Widow Combs, Bohpal and Three Mile Island are familiar names to all of us-names which evoke memories of environmental tragedies. These memories, as well as memories of other environmental disasters, lead us to pose this question: What is the nature of the environmental social contact between industry and society? The manner in which one answers this question will. in large measure, answer the question of where one thinks environmental issues will go, or should go, in the 1990s and beyond. The history of the evolution of the environmental movement will be helpful in defining and under- standing just what society's environmental responsibility is and, perhaps, what it will be. To Define the Future Start With the Past The common law, which most of the United States adopted from the English system of jurisprudence, traditionally considered pollution control and other environmental issues to be a matter of determining the relative rights of private property owners and of individuals. Legal and equitable theories, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass and the law of riparian rights, were utilized to allocate responsibilities between parties under the common law. The discharge of pollutants into streams and into the air was by and large considered acceptable, at least up to the point that another's "reasonable" use of the same air or waterway was significantly impeded. Further, the judicial decisions interpreting the applicability of the common law to the protection of the environment generally reflected the social and economic pressures of the age. During the Industrial Revolution, the decisions and policies had a marked tendency to favor industrial development. Jobs and industrial growth are deemed as important, and in some cases more important, than the protection of people and property. Additionally, the idea of a social responsibility, beyond that owed to a competing land or water user, was nearly alien to the early common law.' One could even go so far as to say that, had there been a social environmental contract under early common law (which, of course, there was not); but if there were, it would have been to promote actions which facilitated industrial development, even at the expense of the environment. Post-World War LI industrial expansion brought with it a growing awareness of limits on the environment's ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution. Thus evolved an era of social and political adjustment, as society began to shift away from supporting big business and industrial development and toward supporting domestic government programs and limits on industry. States gradually stepped in with efforts to address environmental issues. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the West Virginia Surface Mining Act of 1939, while lax in comparison to today's standards, nevertheless marked definitive efforts toward altering the balance between industrial development and environmental protection Pollution control continued to be viewed as a state responsibility through the 1950s, until Congress began, for the first time, to allocate funds for federal research on air and water pollution and to implement

Jan 1, 1988

By William Perry Pendley

Let us go back in time, back to when a Navy veteran from the South was President of the United States, a man from the Rocky Mountain West was Secretary of the Interior and a leading environmentalist was head of the EPA; and there followed what many perceived of as a war on the West-on our water, on our timber, on our oil and gas and mineral exploration, and on our small communities. It's easy to think that I'm talking about the administration of James Earl Carter, III of Georgia, but I'm not. I'm talking about this administration, the administration of George Herman Walker Bush of Texas. I say that as a life-long Republican who never voted for a Democrat and who worked hard to put George Bush in the Oval Office. Many of us wondered, in 1988, what Vice President George Bush meant when he said; "I am an environmentalist." Well, now we know. In his State of the Union address, which was otherwise lacking in specific detail, George Bush said two very specific

Jan 1, 1990

ARTICLE I - General Section 1. Name. The name of the corporation shall be The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. Section 2. Objects and Purposes. The objects and purposes of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the nature of the business to be carried on by it are as follows: (a) To sponsor educational programs pertaining to coal mining technologies and production techniques, mining management and safety, federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations pertaining to coal mining, and other energy related issues. (b) To disseminate to the public and to educational and scientific institutions knowledge, and the results of study and research into recent developments in coal mining technologies and production techniques, mining management and safety, federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to coal mining, and other energy related issues. (c) To do and engage in all lawful activities that further or are consistent with the preceding objects and purposes of the corporation. Section 3. Nonprofit Corporation. This corporation shall operate as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Colorado. ARTICLE 11- Principal Office and Corporate Seal Section. 1. Principal Office. The principal office and place of business of the corporation in the State of Colorado shall be in the County of Jefferson, Colorado, or at such other location as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine. Other offices and places of business may be established from time to time by resolution of the Board of Directors. Section 2. Corporate Seal. The seal of the corporation shall be inscribed with the name of the corporation, the year of its incorporation, and the words "Colorado" and "Seal," and shall be in a form approved by the Board of Directors, which may alter the same at pleasure. ARTICLE III - Members Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classes, consisting of active members, life members, and senior members, who shall have such rights, privileges, and qualifications as these bylaws may provide. Section 2. Qualifications. The members of the corporation shall have the following qualifications: (a) Any individual interested in the goals and purposes of the corporation may become an active member of the corporation upon payment of such annual dues as the Board of Directors may determine from time to time by resolution. (b) An individual who has devoted long and dedicated service to the corporation and to its goals and purposes may become a life member of the corporation upon being elected to that status by the Board of Directors, and such individual shall retain such status for life. (c) An individual who has been at any time an active member of the corporation and who has reached 70 years of age may become a senior member upon payment of such annual dues as the Board of

Jan 1, 1994

By Franklin P. Wood

Unnumbered ages have passed since the time when nature's laboratories were working without the aid of capital or labor unions assisted only by earth's cooling crust and old Sol's rays, to lay the prodigious coal beds of the earth and distil the oils which now furnish the basis for the world's great industries. Strangely enough rays from the same old sun probably somewhat diminished in intensity are still drawing from earth to clouds the water that will run down hill and through man-made devices produce energy to compete with that made with the products created in ages past. So now we find that within the past century vast human industries have grown up around the products of these agencies and here we are today discussing the many problems connected therewith and among the others the subject of this paper, which is essentially the relation of COAL to OIL in industry. The problems involved are those of human relationship and are not fundamentally unsolvable when engineering skill and knowledge is properly applied. The last few years has developed a brand of pessimism that is especially prevalent in the coal industry, at any rate in the west where we come in contact with it. In any general discussion with coal men, a very short time only is required to bring out the feeling or expression that the coal business is on the rocks and the reasons run the gamut of human deviltry. We have heard that in the not far distant past corn was so cheap that the farmers were compelled to burn it and thus deprive the coal mines of their well earned right to sell coal for this purpose. We have heard that the flood of oil is so vast that it was being burned in preference to coal, and to heap insult on injury that the rail- road locomotives were burning oil in order to pull coal away from the mines. We have heard that the union was responsible for all the woes to which the industry is subjected. We have heard that the family tin lizzie is so depleting the family exchequer that coal could not be purchased and if purchased could not be collected for. We have heard that producing mines are so numerous that the profits are a negligible quantity. These are but a few of the reasons assigned for making the coal producers a class of pessimists which is not good for the industry. All these reasons given and all the others must be taken collectively and these are not the cause but the effect of a rapidly changing civilization. An analogy may be found in the experience of many of us in the electric industry a few years ago. You may remember that less than 20 years ago the high efficiency Tungsten electric globe was introduced. It was so much more efficient than the old carbon lamp that only one-third of the current previously required was needed to produce the same illumination. Consternation seized the ranks of electrical men who had little or no vision, for the out- look was that so little current would be sold that everyone would be bankrupt. This limited vision, however, did not prevail, for all engaged in the industry spurred on by necessity, accomplished many of the things that we are now enjoying the fruits of be- cause the electric industry has grown and is growing by leaps and bounds and every highly efficient improvement is greeted with rejoicing. It is well known that when the old type of carbon arc lamp began to be replaced by modern units the manufacturer of carbon rods thought his doom was sealed and yet these same manufacturers have so adjusted them- selves to conditions that the dry battery business of today is of vastly greater volume and profit than was the carbon rod business of the past. Of course, there are industries that should not have survived anyway that have gone down and out to makeway for vastly improved conditions and can

Jan 1, 1925

By Fredrick D. Palmer

U.S. ENERGY: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST Assessing Goals, Needs and Resources ?Decision-makers must balance the needs of average Americans with the need for: ?A strong economy ?A clean environment ?A secure nation ?Events of recent years ?terrorist acts, multiple energy crises and a global focus on sustainable development ?magnify the need to balance these principles ?Coal ?domestic, abundant, affordable and increasingly clean ?meets these needs like no other energy source

Jan 1, 2003

By J. J. Craron

MR. J. J. CRARON: If Ross Weber rings that bell of his, I think I have a few secrets on him that I will tell. It is not such a long time ago when the sales and executive departments of the coal industry were constantly urging the operating department to increase their output, and this cry for increased production resulted in vast development work and increased capacity to the point where the operating departments are today in position to produce coal upon sudden demand far in excess of the ability of their sales departments to dispose of it. So today our ability to produce coal is away ahead of our ability to market it. There are many reasons, of course, for this condition. First, the present economic situation, which has prevented even a normal consumption of coal. Secondly, the over-development and production of every commodity and industry as the result of war time and post-war time prosperity. Thirdly, the inroads made by competitive fields, particularly oil and gas, because of the desire of the public for automatic heat.

Jan 1, 1934

By Margaret N. Maxey

Man's capacity far fretting is endless, and no matter what difficulties we surmount, how many ideals we realize, there is a stealthy pleasure in rejecting mankind or the universe as unworthy of our approval. - Will Durant Until recently, reasons for favoring one or another energy alternative were advanced on the basis of technical considerations and economic realities. However, it is an indication of the cultural climate of our society and growing realization of why energy is our master resource that many citizens have begun to express concern about the social and ethical implications of our energy deci¬sion-making. A vivid indication of this shift toward ethical concerns is reflected in the attention being focused on conservation - even to the point of regarding it as a virtual panacea equivalent to a "free energy resource." Among others, the authors of a publication by Resources for the Future cautions us about the difficulties of defining conservation. They also point out that unrealistic expectations for achieving the high levels of conservation claimed by true believers may boomerang if, at the same time, we are morally required to maintain economic growth and robust productivity for the basic well-being of more people. In its economic meaning, conservation signifies the most economic or cost-effective applications of energy, together with other resources, in a given process or activity. To achieve conservation that is cost-effective, saving energy alone is not sufficient; the cost involved in saving the energy must be no greater than the cost of the energy that is saved. Using its thermodynamic meaning, conservation and efficiency are viewed as constrained by physical laws and measured against ideal limits set by these laws and processes. Since achieving higher levels of technical performance is not without costs, the economic meaning of conservation must be factored into technical possibilities. It is the ethical, equity and environmental meaning of conservation that concerns us here. In its third meaning, conservation consists in moderation as a value which appears inherently worthwhile both in itself and in relation to social choices dedicated to achieving distributive justice. The value of moderation seems predicated on the assumption that natural resources and the environment have fixed, finite, exhaustible capacities for satisfying human needs. Hence norms for moderating human behavior appear to require prescriptions by some authority. Such norms presuppose some agreement on "essential" uses of energy. However, the difficulties of setting behavioral norms loom large, because "... it is as difficult to determine essential energy consumption as to determine what is essential in any other phase of consumption, whether it involves food, clothing, shelter, or recreation." The ethical meaning of conversation is further complicated by a centuries-old argument over the proper exercise of stewardship - i.e., how best to develop natural resources. On the one hand, the preservationist position insists on an inviolate, "hands-off" policy and stands opposed to ongoing development of wilderness areas and mineral resources. On the other hand, the "scientific conservationist" who preaches the "gospel of efficiency" insists on development of resources based on principles of sustained-yield, multiple use and - in the case of competing claims - reserving resources or land for their "higher use." Current confusion reigns among opinion leaders in the environmental movement because they appear to have lost the genius of the original Conservation ethic, developed in the 19th century. They seem to think that conservation is preservation. The question I wish to explore is whether a single-minded, exclusive pursuit of "conservation" in its economic, thermodynamic and preservationist meanings may actually do more harm than good in serving the ethical goals of conservation. There

Jan 1, 1986

It was said that the coal operators are losing a great advantage in permitting the oil producers to take the domestic market away from them. Coal is so much less expensive and more economical than oil that even the oil producers themselves are burning coal under their stills. No longer is the housewife afraid of machinery. Not only does she operate an automobile, but in her home she is used to vacuum sweepers, washing machines, refrigerators, and multitudinous devices. She is no longer machine-shy. An electrically operated stoker, if properly introduced and guaranteed with only a fraction of the enthusiasm that the oil furnace salesman shows, would get a ready reception. Several devices now on the market are much less complicated, much less apt to get out of order, than the oil burners. In place of an increased cost for the sake of convenience, the stoker will give all this convenience at a decreased cost. So said Mr. Herres. He said, however, that it must be enclosed so that the working parts are not too much in evidence. MR. McAULIFFE: While it appears possible to adapt a continuous feed to the needs of the furnace in an apartment or a house burning thirty tons or more annually, it is not yet possible to get a furnace that would satisfy the home which burns only seven or eight tons in a season. A delegate described the Garrison stoker which is designed to care for this problem. Mr. Herres said that the Pacific Coal Company had a small stoker furnace more simple than the Harrington. Pulverized coal equipment is being adapted to use in apartment houses. The stoker designed by Lloyd Garrison, State Engineer of Utah, was described, and also one which Mr. G. W. Megeath of Omaha, Nebraska, had manufactured, which Mr. McAuliffe says, is recommended only for Rock Springs coal. It was brought out that there are over forty installations of the "Iran Fireman" in Salt Lake City. For apartment buildings, there is no question as to their satisfaction. Many of the down town office buildings are so heated.

Jan 1, 1925

PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Gentlemen, the next order of business, if you wish to discuss it is Mechanical Loading. We still have a little time left that could be devoted to that subject, and the meeting will be open now for that purpose. Where is Mr. Edge- worth? J. E. EDGEWORTH (Foreman, Union Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming): Here. PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Yon start the ball rolling. Tell us what you are doing in the Rock Springs District, on the mechanical loading. SECRETARY SHURART Mr. Edgeworth is the man at the face handling the coal. He never sees the light of day these late winter mornings.

Jan 1, 1927

PRESIDENT WHITESIDE: The chair will now throw the meeting open to discussion. GEO. B. PRYDE: In the old days at Rock Springs we had electric plants situated about half a mile from our mines; we had small boiler plants; we had an electric plant with about 600 kilowatt capacity. About ten years ago we discarded the old steam plants and started building towards a centralized power plant. We now have three 2,500-kilowatt turbine generators and one 1,000, and our peak load is about 7,000 kilowatts. We have had to rebuild the old power plant, scrap the old machines, and install water tube boilers. We did this as a matter of economy in a small local plant we had years ago, and it has grown to be a large central plant, supplying power for about 20,000 tons of coal daily, and distributing this power within a radius of twenty miles. We have found this method of power to be more economical than with the old plants, and the people who buy power from us in the Rock Springs field say it has been to their advantage also. We found this last year, when we had to shut down for five months, that that plant was the only plant operating in the Rock Springs field, supplying all the power, running of fans and pumping during the time the mines were shut down, and it helped the situation very much. We had an old wooden building which we had to tear down, raise the walls, and put on a steel roof; had to rebuild the boiler room and rebuild the boilers. The water situation at Rock Springs has never been very good; we get our water from wells 250 to 500 feet deep, and use one and one-quarter million gallons a week. We have two large spray ponds and we have gotten along well. There isn't any comparison between the central power station and the old method of making power. (Applause.) FRANK YOUNG: I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the paper just read, and it struck me it was remarkable how a paper prepared by anyone could be so nearly identical and coincide so very near with the experience of another. It is just like some work I have had. I had the engineering part to do for the power plant for ten years, and I think at that time we did all of the things that he mentioned in his paper. Also his analysis of the cost of power seems to me exactly right. If I had gathered the figures and made the statement myself I think it would have been very much the same as was read. The recommendation that it is better to buy

Jan 1, 1923

By Robert E. Hanes

Coal Perspectives We are the ?Saudi Arabia of Coal Reserves? (Billions of Short Tons) [ ] However, China & India have added approximately one half of the U.S. installed base capacity for electrical generation, in TWO YEARS ? and it took us some 50-60 years to install our coal fleet.

Jan 1, 2008

By Warren C. Bracewell

At your request, am submitting to you several suggestions for the amendment of our safety code which you felt should be kept up to date. These suggestions are the individual opinions of the several members of the Committee who have expressed (heir wishes to me in the form of letters. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Daniel Harrington, Mr. Wm. Littlejohn, Mr. Warren Bracewell, Mr. James Dalrymple and Mr. Hugh McLeod. Would recommend the following amendments Section 1. Wherever practical trolley wires should be securely hung to roof or timbers at a distance of not less than five feet and not more than six and one-half feet above rail and six inches to one side. Spacing of hangers should be from 20 to 25 feet apart. (Adopted.) Section 2. 500 volts D. C. should not be allowed in any installations. Trolley wires should not carry a voltage of more than 250 D. C. nominal voltage. (Referred back.) Pumps, mining machines and other small machinery units where A. C. power is used should not carry a voltage of more than 220. Large units, such as pumps, motor generator sets and hoists, may use a volt- age of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings, on haulage-ways or where men travel. (Adopted.) Section. 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stop- pings they should be properly insulated with porcelain compound or rubber tubing. Wherever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same should be secure1y guarded and should also be protected with a cut- out switch, same to be pulled before men are allowed to get on or off trips. (Adopted.)

Jan 1, 1926

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

By Charlie Monroe

Savage Company History ?C.A. Savage & Son was founded in American Fork, Utah in 1946 by Kenneth Savage and his father. ?Kenneth?s brothers, Neal and Luke joined the company soon after, and remain involved today. ?Since 1988, the company has focused on its strength, expertise in providing high-quality Operating Services & Logistics Management. ?Today, Savage provides comprehensive services in the following Industries: ?Crude Oil Refining ?Sulphur & Fertilizers ?Coal Production and Mining ?Electric Power Production ?Industrial/Chemical Services ?Lumber and Forest Products ?Railroads

Jan 1, 2005

By D. Harrington

E. H. DENNY (United States Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado) In the absence of Mr. Harrington it is my privilege to read his paper, which is in his usual, forcible and sincere style, and it is within the province of this Institute, certainly, to go into it as it concerns safety and efficiency in mining. He brings out some points in his paper that, I think, are well worth the consideration of the Institute. The figures he uses were compiled by Mr. Adams, of the Bureau, and cover a five-year period. However, examination of similar Bureau figures for a ten-year period, or any other long period on other bases brings out similar results. The figures in this paper have been based on the million hours of exposure of accidents, and the figures based on three hundred working-man-day basis, or on tonnage, brings out similar results. This paper is entitled "Accident Record in Western Mines," and it is, in a way, an amplification of Mr. Harrington's letter which was read at the Glenwood Springs Meeting.

Jan 1, 1927

By Kirk Nobis

Develop a Risk Management Plan for Your Mine ? Why? ? Measuring ? Managing ? Conclusion

Jan 1, 2006

By Edward Bottomley

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I tried to get Benedict Shubart to have some fellow-some big fellow with a big voice-to read this paper for me, but he said there was nothing doing; [ ] that I would have to read it myself. I will try and not take up too much of your time. It is a pretty big subject, Mechanical Loading, and it covers a good deal of ground. I have merely touched on the high spots, as it were. A great deal has been preached and written in the last year or so about mechanical loading, and I doubt if any other subject in the mining industry has been discussed so freely and as often in the last few years. It is not the intent of this paper to dwell on the merits or demerits of any [ ] particular type of loader, that is, to say what the writer thinks is the most efficient or most inefficient machine. There are several types of loaders on the market to-day that are proving very successful in many mining districts. Some of these, five or six years ago, seemed to be a miserable failure from every standpoint, mechanically

Jan 1, 1926

The 65th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President Joe T. Taylor, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Palo Alto, California. Manager of the Stanley Hotel, who welcomed the guests to the Stanley. After a few remarks, he introduced Bob Dean, for- mer Manager of the Stanley Hotel and again associated with the Stanley, who also made a welcoming talk as Mr. Dean has hosted the Institute at the Colorado Hotel in Glenwood Springs and in Estes Park. Mr. Taylor introduced President Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Stan was raised in the machinery end of the coal industry following the footsteps of his Dad who was one of the founders of the RMCMI in 1912. And following his Dad's years of service to the Institute, 12 of them as Secretary, Stan has been active as Chairman of the Hotel & Registration Committee for 16 years, and, prior to his election as President, was General Chair- man for two years He is a graduate of the University of Colorado with a degree in mechanical engineering. He served our country in World War II and retired as a Colonel, Army Ordnance, after 43 years in the Reserve. He is a Trustee of National Jewish Hospital and was their President for 3 years. He has been active in many Military and professional societies, and in civic projects. I give you our President, Stan Shubart, for his remarks.

Jan 1, 1969

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

The Sixty-First Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:00 a.m. by Past President Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Claude introduced Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc., Denver, Colorado. His introduction of President Bridwell follows: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege and pleasure to open this session of the Sixty-first Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. My particular assignment is to introduce to you (those of you at least who do not know him) our Acting President, who for now we will call "Brid."

Jan 1, 1965