Search Documents

By S. W. Farnham

We have listened to many papers describing mechanical loaders, and systems of mining planned to increase their efficiency. We have become familiar with the various types and in a general way, their capacities and limitations. Messrs. F. E. Cash and E. H. Johnson in Bulletin 17 of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, subject Coal Mining Investigations, have a very complete review of the loading situation then. Mr. A. W. Dickinson, in a recent paper before this Institute, gave a later illustrated review of mechanical loaders. On page 28 of Cash & Johnson's paper is a list of loading machines to which might be added to bring the list down to date, the following: Under Digging and Loading Machines The Goodman Power Shovel Under Scraper Loaders The Goodman 436-G-3 125 H. P. three drum Scraper loader The Goodman 35 H. P. Entry loader and the Two Drum 125 H. P. Hoist built by Vulcan of Denver for scrapers Under Shaking Trough Conveyors The Eickhoff Conveyor The Link-Belt Conveyor The McCarty Duck-bill which is really a digging and loading element built to attach to the end of and operated by a reciprocating conveyor. The outstanding feature in this line of work in the past few years is the fact that a few very successful operations have been worked out on a large scale; the officers and staff in charge of this work have gone into details very thoroughly and altered and improved, in many cases, their mine equipment and mining methods, and by the exercise of persistent energy and intelligent effort, in the face of frequent difficulties and discouragements, they have attained results that are far ahead of the average loader operation. The coal mining industry owes much to these men for the pioneering and development of mechanical loading; their investigations in transport, shooting, shearing, snubbing, cleaning, and production costs, the results of which they have given freely and frequently to the public, are of great value. Foremost among the pioneers in this work are the Union Pacific Coal properties, the Quealy properties, the Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company and in the Central West, the Union Colliery Company of Illinois. On the other hand, in the great majority of installations, one loader, or possibly two or three loaders have been started in a given operation and through failure to make the proper effort to improve their transportation and work out the systems to utilize their loading machines, the loaders have not shown appreciable savings and in many cases, the installation has failed. It has been frequently stated in many meetings where loading has been discussed, that the idea of mechanical loading must first be sold not only to the operating staff but to the entire personnel of any company where installations are made. The problems involved in the successful application of this equipment are such that it requires enthusiastic and wholehearted teamwork on the part of everyone connected with the work and when difficulties arise, they must be ready to exercise initiative and try new ways oftentimes of overcoming impediments. The closest attention now is given to the question of economics how much will a loader reduce the cost of coal in any particular situation? Without fear of successful contradiction, I believe that experience up to date has unquestionably shown that where the shovel type of loader can be properly used, it produces in wide work, the cheapest coal of any loading device yet brought onto the market. Naturally there is a considerable difference between the results from different makes of shovels.

Jan 1, 1926

The Sixtieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:10 a.m. by Past President Mike Zakotnik, Jr., General Superintendent, The Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming. Mike introduced Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals and Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah; and President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. President's Address Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Min- ing Institute, guests, visitors and friends: I feel this is a distinct honor to talk to you on the occasion of this 60th regular meeting of the Institute. I once assumed this would be the Institute's 60th birthday, but later found that the first meeting was held in the State Capitol at Denver on November 12, 1912, at which time a comparatively small group of operators duly organized the Institute; a Mr. Weitzel of Colorado Fuel & Iron Company was then elected president and our late and dearly remembered Fred W. Whiteside, whose wife Gussie now carries Fred's work forward, was elected secretary. From Fred's records, early meetings were held semi-annually at rather irregular intervals, so that this 60th meeting is approximately the 52nd birthday of the organization and I am number 44 to serve as president. This latter development, I am sure, was conjured up last year by certain members at Glenwood Springs when I was absent. Anyway, I am honored and trust 'that these sessions will be both interesting and instructive in helping us on our way in the coal business.

Jan 1, 1964

Jan 1, 1928

The ninth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation was held in conjunction with the RMCMI 2000 convention at the Sheraton Tamarron Resort, Durango, Colorado June 25 thru 27. The purpose of the mine rescue evaluation program is to provide an opportunity for mine rescue teams to learn new skills and improve their existing ones in a non-competitive environment. Several staged "disaster" scenarios were [ ] held where the teams are called upon to exhibit their life saving abilities. The evaluators meanwhile are offering suggestions, both verbal and written, to help the teams better understand the situations presented them. This non-competitive environment allows the teams to work together and share their knowledge with fellow mine rescue teams providing everyone with a positive learning experience. Mine Rescue Chairman Bill Balaz was in charge of coordinating the events. Seven teams consisting of seven to ten members each (totaling 63 members) participated in the two-day event. Each team was required to respond to three different real-life scenarios plus a written general knowledge test daily. This year's four professional evaluators included Art Saenz (Hazardous Materials) of Western Envi¬ronmental Associates; Guy Horton (Ropes), Guy Horton Rope Rescue; Mary Bailey (Medical), MBA Training and Ron Lauer (Confined Space) also lassos Western Environmental Associates. They cash prov- [ ] ided three different challenging mock situations per day per team. The teams had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios would be as details were provided only as they arrived. Ten volunteer victims added much drama and excitement to the event. Their realistic enactments, complete with false blood makeup and severed limbs, made for some very tense scenarios. The Mine Rescue Teams participating this year were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navajo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Longview, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River, Wyoming and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, Montana. Many new [ ] friendships were made and much knowledge shared. A swap meet was held Saturday afternoon for the teams to exchange miscellaneous equipment, hats, shirts, etc. The teams were asked to evaluate the program and the evaluators. Then responded with many positive suggestions that will help improve the upcoming events in the years to come. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning awards breakfast where the teams were presented with plaques. The participating victims and evaluators were also commended for their outstanding efforts. Sponsors for the Mine Rescue program were Big Sky Coal Company, CMC Rescue, Magnum Metals, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Electric. Many hours of volunteer time and effort from various family members of participants helped make the 2000 event a huge success.

Jan 1, 2000

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, 1985

Jan 1, 1927

[Arsulich, Thomas Mechanical Engineer, S.A.E. House, Laramie, Wyoming Barrett, A. Lee joy Mfg., Co., Research Engineer, Franklin, Pa. Bartlett, Rulon Salesman, 265 S. Seventh East, Salt Lake City, Utah Beauchamp, Paul N Goodman Mfg. Co., Sales Engineer, 2509 S. Monroe, Denver, Colorado Boyle, J. J Mine Superintendent, Roundup, Montana ?Burnell, Patrick H Gebo, Wyoming]

Jan 1, 1950

By NA N/A

Jan 1, 1931

Jan 1, 1927

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan,-Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, John P Development & Resources Corp., 50 Broadway, N. Y. 4, N. Y. Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Archer, Bryon J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1963

MR. GIBSON (continuing): In connection with the coal from this mine, I will say that it is not a very dirty coal. The vein where most of the coal comes from is about eight feet thick, and two feet from the bottom there is a small boney band about two inches thick. The breaking shot has to be placed over the, band, therefore breaking the boney into fine particles which goes off with the slack. This coal is a very good domestic coal and the slack is in great demand for various power, plants, such as sugar plants, smelters and other industries, but where this, boney is broken up and goes into the slack, it is very injurious in effect and retards the sale of the slack. Therefore the Spring Canyon Coal Company went to the expense of' building this plant, costing over $250,000, just in order to get that, two inches of boney coal out of the rest of the vein. The market in, Utah is very critical, and in order to sell coal, the product must be thoroughly clean in every way and, as Mr. Murphy says, I believe they have succeeded in making a very good commercial product. In any event the Spring Canyon Coal Company put out more coal than any other one mine during the last year, 1924, they had the largest production. I thank, you. (Applause). PRESIDENT MARKS: With the assistance of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Miller, I am sorry you could not get the pictures a little better synchronized with the story. MR. F. C. MILLER (Chief Chemist The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, Pueblo) : We had seven slides to show eighteen different views on the screen and we did remarkably well. (Laughter.) PRESIDENT MARKS: Is there : any further discussion on this paper? MR. G. B. JONES (Mining Inspector, Victor-American Fuel Co.) : I would like to ask a question on the

Jan 1, 1926

By O .. G. Sharrer

Loading mechanically has of late become the most widely discussed subject in connection with coal mining and has even equalled. the discussion of safety measures as a topic of interest. The subject has been discussed in the various mining journals and by well. informed persons at the Mining Institutes, so it would appear; that all has been said that can be said until further experiments bring out new lines of discussion. It is, therefore, not the intention to present this article as a technical discussion of the subject of mechanical loading as a whole, but rather as a plain talk on machines with which the writer has had personal contact. In 1919, during the first period of post-war depression, a Pennsylvania coal company employing union labor became interested in the possibilities of mechanical loading with the hope of reducing their mining costs, which were and are yet too high to meet competition from the non-union fields of Somerset and Westmoreland counties. Of several loaders presented for their consideration the model of the Joy loader shown by Mr. Joseph F. Joy, seemed to hold the greatest possibilities, and after extended study, the management decided to invest in a machine of this type. A machine was built, which as far as the writer knows was the only one of its type ever put on the market. This machine arrived at one of the mines early in 1920 and was put to work immediately. It was a forerunner of the present 4-BU and 5-BU types, but differed from them very radically as to design. In general the machine consisted of the familiar Joy gathering arms and a short conveyor which discharged into a steel tank which held about four and one-half tons of coal. This tank was emptied by a second conveyor which placed the coal in the mine car. The object of this conveyor tank was to provide storage room while changing cars and to allow the machine to load on the entry while the room was short. This plan was very efficient and from our experience was worth retaining, but has been abandoned by the Joy Company on account of its making the machine unwieldy. The whole machine was mounted on caterpillar tractors which were driven by two 10-H.P. Westinghouse series wound motors, each having its own controller, the controllers being arranged in tandem so as to be operated by the same handle. This very ingenious scheme which is shown in Figure 4, was supposed to make it possible to steer the loader by the controllers. By swinging the handle one way both motors moved forward, by swinging the handle the other way both motors moved backwards and by twisting the handle as shown by arrows, one motor moved ahead and the other back, thus causing the machine to turn. This scheme proved a failure as the loader was too temperamental and erratic in its operation. After Mr. Joy, himself, narrowly escaped serious injury, this device was taken off and the controllers manipulated separately. This system never proved satisfactory and was abandoned' for

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1987

By Jerry M. Eyster

The Bush Administration is committed to reducing emissions from existing power plants Candidate George W. Bush said: The key to reducing emissions from older power plants on the federal level is to cap emissions on a level that makes sense?. And harness the power of the market place and provide economic incentives to produce better environmental results. I would want to make sure that any program we pursue does not result in excessive and unnecessary increases in electric bills.

Jan 1, 2002

James Westfield, Assistant Director, United States Bureau of Mines, Washing- ton, D. C., called the second morning session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order, and promptly introduced John Peperakis, Manager of the Sunnyside Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation. Sunnyside, Utah, who spoke on "Ground Control Developments, Sunnyside Mines, Kaiser Steel Corporation." Mr. Peperakis illustrated his talk with a number of slides which were not reproduced with the printed text. (For the printed text of Mr. Peperakis' paper see index.) James J. Diamanti, President of the Car- bon Fuel Company, Helper, Utah, was introduced by Mr. Westfield, and he spoke on "Small Mine Operators Help Themselves." Questions from the floor followed Mr. Diamanti's talk.

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 2005

[Adams, E. R Rock Springs, Wyoming Adams, V. H. 422 East San Miguel Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado Allen, Earl W 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B . Box 1920, Denver 1. Colorado Allen, Thomas Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado Alston, G. L Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ambler, J. B Box 591, Denver, Colorado Apperson, A. B. 394 Elm Street, Denver 7, Colorado Arnett, L. L. 325 North First West, Price, Utah Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audin, Clement, Jr Paonia, Colorado Audin, Clement, Sr Box 627, Paonia, Colorado Audin, Ralph Box 285, Somerset, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1952

MR. MARGOLF: Thank you very, very much Harris. There's sure a lot there to think about in terms, of our image, particularly. I think we should keep' in mind what Harris said about our history not being monolithic. Therefore our image can only be that, which is reflecting the weakest link in our industry and I think that's a burden on all of us. Perhaps to do some policing amongst ourselves to try to improve whatever might be our weakest link and thereby elevate our entire industry. Our third speaker this afternoon is another good friend of mine of long standing and I am very pleased to be able to introduce to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Bob Golten. Bob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a degree in Economics and Harvard Law School. His professional experience encompasses private practice in Chicago where he was born and in the federal government as a public defender in Washington, D.C. and in the Department of Justice as a tax , attorney. Some of us have come to know Bob more in his present role as the senior counsel for the I National Wildlife Federation. He's also Adjoint Professor of Law and Director of the National Wildlife Federation Resource Clinic, University of Colorado. Boulder campus. In addition, Bob has served with the Rocky Mountain Center on Environment as one of its directors for a number of years. He's very active in a number of areas that are not only civic but he does reflect what I would present by way of introduction as a perspective

Jan 1, 1982

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988