Search Documents

MR. STROUP: As soon as the mine workers realize that machine loading is going to be with us permanently, they will gradually accept the view that they, as well as the Mine Operators, will be in the end better off. Don't you find that to be true? MR. BUTLER: I do find that the antagonistic feeling that prevailed at the start is getting less and less and that the miners are co-operating with us. The machine is going to stay with us and I believe it is going to be better for them because instead of having the hard work of heaving coal, they will merely run the machinery that heaves the coal for them. I believe they all feel that way about the matter. MR. McAULIFFE: Mr. Farnham, out of his professional diplomacy, was very careful not to even mention his own machine by name. I would like to say a word about salesmen and about the men who develop the machines. They are perhaps doing more for the industry than we are doing ourselves. This applies also to the railroad business that I put a great part of my life in. If it were not for the energy, courage, and ingenuity of the men who manufacture machines, we would not occupy the advanced position we do today in the mining world.

Jan 1, 1924

Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co. Sundance Rt. Moorcroft, WY 82716 Charles R. Ahlbrecht Western States Surveying Inc. 7030 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 Dean Albon Monsanto Co. 800 No. Lindberg St. Louis, MO 631 67 Robert Anderson Mobil Oil Producing Inc. POB 17772 Denver, CO 8021 7 Stephen P. Antony Orbital Engineering 6789 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 David Ariotti Boyle Mining Engineering Service Rt. 1 Box 15M Helper. UT 84526 Douglas Auck Falkirk Mining Co. 103 McKinley Ave. Underwood, ND 58378 Roger Backrnan N. D. Crockett & Assoc. 3467 Sorenson Way Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Richard Bailey Continental Conveyor & Equip. Co. 602 Park Point Drive Golden, CO 80401 Earl W. Baker Baker & Co. 4965 Jackson St. Denver, CO 80216 Allen P. Barber San Juan Coal Co. 705 Ocio Farrnington, NM 87421 Edward Barker Process Equipment Builders POB 7506 Paducah, KY 42001 Larry Barton Carter Mining Co. 101 5 Teewinot Circle Gillette, WY 82716 Hugh Bastian American Carbide Corp. POB 2650 Ronald N. Batdorf Monsanto Co. Box 701 Saratoga, WY 82331 Georgetown, KY 40321 Doris A. Bauer Mobile Oil Corp. POB 17772 Denver, CO 80217 Jan Beam Blount International Ltd. 2570 So. Dayton Way #E-308 Denver, CO 80231 Mac Beaudry Falkirk Mining Co. 1029 Cannon Ln. Washburn, ND 58527 R. C. Beerbower Gates Engineering Co. Drawer A Beckley, WV 25801

Jan 1, 1982

By J. M. Shafer

Jan 1, 2005

By Michael A. Berdine

Twentymile Coal Company?s first longwall face in the late 1980?s was oriented approximately 45 degrees to the major coal cleats and 45 degrees to the primary horizontal stresses. This combination of stress and coal cleating resulted in frequent violent bursts of coal along the longwall face. The bursts created particles of sufficient size and force with the potential of causing injury to employees and occasional damage to shield components. Partial web cutting was subsequently developed in an attempt to relieve the stress on the coal face and required the shearing machine to travel to the tailgate and back for a full 36 inch web. The partial web cutting pattern is focused on first cutting the lower 90% of the seam to relieve the stress as the shearer travels from the headgate to the tailgate. The web depth during the headgate to tailgate pass is typically in the range of 70% to 80% and varies with conditions to maximize production rates. The top and bottom of the seam in the remaining 20 to 30% of the web are then cut out to allow the shields and face conveyor to advance. 100% of the web is cut at each gate end for a distance of approximately 19 shields. This paper addresses some general mine geology and the procedures and benefits of partial web cutting with respect to safety, production and maintenance on a high production longwall face.

Jan 1, 2004

By T. H. Butler

February 22nd, 1926. Mr. Benedict Shubart, 521 Boston Building, Denver, Colorado. Dear Mr. Shubart: 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. As before, am advising you that these suggestions do not have the approval of the entire Safety Committee, but rather are the individual opinions of several members who have expressed their wishes in the form of letters to me. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Dan Harrington and Mr. Wm. Littlejohn for their assistance. Would recommend the following amendment a to the various sections. Section 1. Wherever possible 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. 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. 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 genera- tor set and hoists, may use a voltage of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings. Section 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stoppings they should be properly insulated with porcelain or rubber tubing. Whenever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same

Jan 1, 1926

MR. C. M. GODDARD: Mr. Poli invented this little safety switch box. This junction box he has does improve the appearance mentioned in the underground junction boxes used in the foreign countries, where this thing is compulsory. There was some arrangement whereby the attachment could not be made with the switch in. The switch has got to be out of place before they can put the terminals into this box, which avoids all possibilities of short-circuits, except where protected on the inside of this box. In mines that are not gaseous, this is not so essential, but he has invented a very small junction box which probably. could be built for six or eight or ten dollars; if those things are necessary, for the handling of mining machines and their apparatus, takes current off the transmission line, and he has something that would meet that requirement, and I think when it is looked into it will meet the approval of the Bureau of Mines. He had this little box yesterday, and some of the members had looked it over and think, if they will look more favorably into it, they will find something to their advantage. PRESIDENT PRYDE: I think it is a good idea to bring in safety appliances and devices at this meeting. There were two more devices brought in here this morning; one a safety powder flask, and the other a carbide can. We have talked a great deal about permissible powder. It is going to take a little time to change over, and we would have to use the black powder cans. I will leave them in the window, if you care to investigate them.

Jan 1, 1924

[Mr. Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co PO8 3007 Gillette, WY 82716 Mr. Jay Abbott Union Supply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal Co 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112]

Jan 1, 1983

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

John P. Thomas, President. B. W. Snodgrass, Secretary-Treasurer. San Andrews, mine boss, Morley. Richard Bickerton, Tabasco. E. P. Bayles, superintendent, Cokedale. Clyde Campion, parting tender, Valdez. O. C. Cook, 406 East Seventh, Street, Trinidad. James Cameron, superintendent, Hastings. Charles Chambers, superintendent, ,Sopris. Arthur Dennison, Trinidad. Samuel Dean, mine inspector, Delagua. F. S. Dunlevy, assistant engineer, Hastings. L. R. Douglas, assistant engineer, care Danford & Sanderson, Trinidad. W. E. Danford, superintendent, Segundo. M. O. Danford, superintendent, Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co., Trinidad. John Dougherty, mine foreman, Morley. J. C. Davidson, timberman, Valdez. William Easton, fire boss, Valdez. George Fortune, electrician, Primero. D. J. Griffiths, chief mine inspector, Trinidad. J. E. Hanes, assistant engineer, Hastings. Joseph Haske, superintendent, Primero. O. C. Erwin, electrician, 714 Pine Street, Trinidad. R. J. Jinkins, superintendent, Morley. Thomas jolly, superintendent, Gray Creek. James Jamieson, assistant mine boss, Valdez. James Kilpatrick, fire boss, Tobasco. L. M.. Kuhns, first-aid miner, care Mine Safety Car No. 2, Trinidad. William B. Lloyd, 404 East Seventh Street, Trinidad. J. C. Lawrence, machinist, Starkville. R. A. McAllister, mine inspector, Trinidad.

Jan 1, 1913

Jan 1, 1929

Jan 1, 1934

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 Todd A. Myers

Forward Looking Statement Disclaimer This presentation may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements about the Company's vision, strategy, operations, growth, development and any other statements containing the words, "believes, " "expects, " "anticipates, " "plans, " "estimates, " and similar expressions. There are a number of factors that could cause Westmoreland Coal Company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements including, but not limited to: general economic and business conditions; healthcare cost trends; the Company's ability to manage growth and significantly expanded operations; the ability of the Company to implement its business strategy; the Company's ability to pay the preferred stock dividends that are accumulated but unpaid; the Company's ability to retain key senior management; the Company's access to financing; the Company's ability to maintain compliance with debt covenant requirements; the Company's ability to successfully identify new business opportunities; the Company's ability to achieve anticipated cost savings and profitability targets; the Company's ability to utilize its tax net operating losses; demand for electricity; the effect of regulatory and legal proceedings; and other factors identified in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the SEC. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of developments occurring after the date such statement was first made.

Jan 1, 2008

[Abbott, Jay Tusco, Box 1008, Price, Utah 84501 Abrahamson, Gary W Melroe Melroe Mult. Wheel, 1301 Iowa Ave., Longmont, Colo. 80501 Acre, Lee Roadside Mining Corp., 2684 Carol PI., Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Adams, Bob Energy Fuels Corp., Box G, Steamboat Springs, Colo. 80477 Adams, David Empire Energy Corp., Box 68, Craig, Colorado 81625 Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 924 No. Washington Rd., McMurray, Pa. 15317 Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver, Colo. 80201 Adams, E. E Armco Steel Corp., Box 53, Parker, Colorado 80134 Adams, Kenneth L Arch Mineral Corp., 33 Carnation, Belleville, Ill. 62221 Adams, Martin R Energy Research & Develop. Adm., 20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20545 Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 1911 Denver Club Bldg., 518 - 17th St., Denver, Colo 80202 Albert, Darrell Mine Safety Appliances Co., 400 Penn Center Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pa. 15235 Albrechtsen, Ray H Mountain States Resources Corp., 1399 So. 700 East, Suite 11, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105]

Jan 1, 1977

By Graham Bright

Up until a few years ago most of the electrical equipment used in the mines of this country was developed for industrial purposes and was adapted for use in mines by slight modifications. It became apparent, however, that mining conditions differed widely from most industrial applications and it became necessary to design and develop apparatus, particularly suited for use under mining conditions. Most of the electrical apparatus used in mines today, however, does not owe its success entirely to mining development, but in many cases developments in other branches have been taken and improved upon and modified to meet mining conditions. Power Plant: In the earlier days the power plant for the production of electric power usually consisted of fairly small belt driven direct current generators operated from reciprocating non-condensing steam engines. Today where possible the mines purchase power from central stations and where not possible it is ususally produced from turbine driven plants using non-condensing turbines for the smaller plants and condensing turbines for the larger plants. The bad water conditions at many of the coal mines in this country is, responsible in a large measure for the high cost of upkeep and repairs in isolated power plants. This feature with the type of labor available makes it difficult to operate an isolated plant condensing except in the larger mines where water conditions are good and the apparatus can be taken care of. The geared turbine is a particularly simple and rugged piece of apparatus and requires very little attention over long periods of time. Hoists: The first electric hoists to be installed used various types of motors designed for railway or industrial purposes, and the control furnished was far from satisfactory. Today most of the mine hoist motors are of the alternating current type, especially designed for hoisting service. The control for motors of 200 H. P. or over is usually of the magnetic of liquid rheostat type, and as built today will operate over fairly long periods with a very moderate cost of up-keep. Hoists of 1000 H. P. or larger are usually of the direct current type using field control and receiving power from a flywheel or synchronous M. G. set. Hoists of this type have made remarkable records in regard to continuity of operation and low cost of up-keep. Where high speed operation is desired in either coal or metal mines, the D. C. equipment using field control and a separate M. G. set to supply power to the hoist motor is not only the safest and most economical but in many cases is the only type of equipment capable of satisfactorily obtaining the output required. A number of improvements have been brought out with the field control scheme in connection with the acceleration, retardation, overfeed and overwind of the hoist. With these new developments the hoist operator can no longer abuse the hoist by improper manipulation of the control handle. Until a few years ago the matter of safety devices was not given much consideration when installing hoisting equipment. At the present time the safety devices are considered one of the most important items in connection

Jan 1, 1922

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

By I. N. Bayless

The subject of Premium Payments for Mechanical Loading was given consideration by the management, having in mind they would prove an incentive for increasing the tons per man shift, make for a lower production cost and allow the ambitious workman an opportunity to augment his earnings over the regular day wage rate, a standard of performance having been established by the operator which would be expected from the employee. Any performance above the standard is looked upon as a saving to the operator of which the employe benefited to the extent of receiving a certain percentage of the saving effected. The premium must be high enough to be worth while to the employee and low enough to in¬sure a saving to the employer. This method of sharing tends to pay men in accordance with their ability and effort. One of the principal advantages of this method of sharing is that a better class of labor may be attracted. Greater earnings furnish an incentive to increased tonnage. Workmen who prove themselves aggressive are readily noticed by supervisors, and, by shifting men to different places and to different working conditions, the crews are made more efficient and the inefficient workmen may be singled out and eliminated, thus permitting better results and better operation of the mechanical loading equipment. This is also evidenced by the fact that men become their own competitors, also working in competition with other crews. In order to do this, without neglect to the care and protection of the loading machines, men are educated to the proper handling and care of the machinery, keeping it in shape and everything clean in general, which has shown good results.

Jan 1, 1932

By B. W. Dyer

At about 8:30 o'clock on the morning of March 8, 1924, an explosion occurred in the Castle Gate No. 2 Mine of the Utah Fuel Company, Castle Gate, Utah, and 171 men lost their lives. The explosion was caused by the ignition of a comparatively small body of gas and was propagated throughout the mine by fine coal dust which had accumulated on the roof and ribs of the mine and by coal dust made by the explosion itself. Castle Gate No. 2 Mine was one of the best kept mines in the state and it was believed not only by the officials of the Utah Fuel Company, but by all others connected with the coal industry of the state that this was one of the safest mines in the entire state. The state had not been visited by a catastrophe for over twenty years and it was a general belief that the mines were kept in such condition that a catastrophe was almost impossible. During the preceding twenty years new mining officials from other fields had entered the state and seeing that sprinkling as done in Utah was far more elaborate than in most other coal mining sections of the country, caused them to believe that they were keeping their mines in an absolutely safe condition. When coal -mines suffer no mishap during a period of twenty years the general attitude relative to safety may become somewhat lax, not only with the operating officials, but also with the State Inspection Department. However, there were some who were more keen to appreciate the hazards of Utah coal dust and who predicted that if Utah mines were kept only damp but not wet, some day the state would be shocked by the news of a dreadful disaster. In a paper prepared and read before the Salt Lake City Chapter of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers in 1924, Mr. D. Harrington stated: "The writer had his first mining work in Utah mines spending nearly ten years in Utah, starting just after the Scofield explosion in 1900. After having been absent from the state for about eight years upon returning and spending a few days in a few properties, there appeared then to be a definite relaxation as to precautionary methods especially against dust; some of the properties which in 1900 to 1910 would have stopped work if for any reason water was not available for sprinkling purposes, were in 1918 definitely dry in many places, and in some instances there was also definite relaxation as to shooting regulations, some properties with electric shooting systems were allowing firing of certain shots while the men were in the mine. The Utah coal. dusts are too inflammable and explosive to allow of taking any chances and unless up-to-date and carefully maintained, the Utah coal mining world will hear to its dismay, that the very excellent record of the past twenty-three years as to explosions has been shattered. Hence, possibly it was not altogether a complete surprise that such a disaster occurred in Utah, but it was a surprise to many that it occurred in one of the best kept mines in the state and it was that fact that led the coal mining men of Utah to believe that the state coal mining laws should be modified.

Jan 1, 1925

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

By F. C. Miller

The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company has divided their coal mines into groups or divisions: Las Animas, Huerfano, Fremont and Gunnison counties. Each division is represented by a safety committee composed of three men appointed by the management and three men selected by the employes? representatives. The three men appointed by the management are usually from a group engaged in routine work that is primarily of a safety nature. Mr. Robert McAllister, chief mine inspector; Mr. George B. Parker, superintendent of first aid and mine rescue training; Mr. F. C. Miller, chief chemist, fuel department; and Mr. 0. C. Irwin, assistant chief electrician. The three men appointed by the management act in each of the four divisions. It is the duty of the safety commit- tee to visit each mine three times per year and make a thorough investigation of conditions underground and on top. Their report is in the form of recommendations to the management for their consideration. They are also called to investigate all fatal accidents and learn, if possible, the cause leading up to the accident and recommend precautionary measures that will prevent the recurrence. This committee inspects the haulage roads, air courses, manways, electrical equipment, ventilation, timbering, working places and humidity. In addition, each mine has a local safety committee with the superintendent acting as chairman. It is the duty of this committee to keep in daily touch with conditions underground and on top. They hold weekly meetings and discuss problems related to safety. These men work on local conditions that govern their affairs. As an example: One of the mines has a checking out board at the man-trip parting in addition to the regular checking in and out system as required by law, and this board is checked before the man-trip leaves for the outside, giving the officials a chance to take prompt action in looking up a man who may have become ill or injured. Should a man walk out and forget to check off, there is a penalty imposed. The ventilation of a coal mine is most important and the method of conducting the air to the working face is one of the greatest precautionary measures linked with safety. A quantity of air must be maintained at every working face to insure rapid diffusion of explosive or noxious gases and in a manner without interruption. With this intent in, view, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company is installing fan equipments with capacities of 200,000 cubic feet per minute with dual drives, twin fans in some instances, for insured circulation. Dual drives consist of a steam engine using exhaust

Jan 1, 1925