Search Documents

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

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Is there any member that has any question to ask Mr. McCleary on the subject? MR. TESCHER: What do you figure it costs to do this? MR. McCLEARY: Between one and a half and one and three-quarters cents per kilowatt hour. MR. TESCHER: That includes all charges? MR. McCLEARY: All charges, fuel and labor. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Mr. McCleary, you were talking about a ten-inch top on the cars. Don't you find there is considerable spillage when raising or lowering the cars? MR. McCLEARY : Not after the men get accustomed to loading cars properly; at first, they just loaded it on in any old way, but wall it onto the cars solidly after a few days at the mine. I do not think we have that condition now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Did I understand from the paper there that the rock dust you are using contains 90 per cent silica? MR. McCLEARY: Twenty; less than twenty. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I got that figure wrong. Are there any other questions to ask? MR. SCHLOSS: I would like to know what kind of machinery Mr. McCleary is using for rock dusting and are they rock dusting the rooms, or not? MR. McCLEARY: We have only recently started rock dusting, and the machine that we are using is Mr. Tescher's machine. We start in at the face of the main entry and move against the air current rock dusting every room and the entry every 50 feet. Every 50 feet, we stop the machine fifteen or twenty minutes at that point and rock dust up in the room and around the entry at that point. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Do you do any water sprinkling at the faces-at the working face? MR. McCLEARY: Yes, sir, every working face is sprinkled every day, and at least every two days at all points in the mine. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Does it affect the rock dust in any way? MR. McCLEARY: That was true before we started rock dusting. The faces only are sprinkled now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where you stop to sprinkle with water, you do not figure on rock dusting? MR. McCLEARY: I will just change that around. Where we do rock dusting, we do not expect to sprinkle. Where the faces of the coal are fresh, from day to day, that is where the sprinkling will be clone. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: That is the fresh faces? MR. McCLEARY: Yes. I might add right here, I believe Mr. Tescher made the statement that cross-cuts up an 8 per cent pitch were the steepest that

Jan 1, 1925

By George B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of disasters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

By Geo. B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching. all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of dis¬asters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

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

[Page Minutes 5 Present Status of Petroleum Industry 9 F. M. Van Tuyl. Developments Along the Line of Low Heat, Carbonization 13 A. C. Watts. Uses for Fine and Pulverized Coal 14 C. A. Allen. Have Mining Engineers Accepted All That Developments in Machinery Apply? 16 R. Dawson Hall. Coal Mine , Accidents and State Mining Law 23 D. Harrington. Harmony and Co-Operation 26 H. F. Nash. Personal Dangers 28 John Bevan. Methods of Improving Safety and Health Conditions 29 C. A. Allen and A. L. Murray. The Economic Relation of Accidents and Preventable Diseases to the Coal Mining Industry 39 Recent Developments in the Use of Electricity in Mines 43 Graham Bright. Discussion of Graham Bright's Paper 48 Mine Safety Work at Dawson, N. M 49 W. F. Murray. Mine Safety Work 54 Eli Follett. Wire Rope in Mining Operations 56 James F. Howe. Discussion of F. E. Shepard's Address 69]

Jan 1, 1922

Pictured on these pages are the eight RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1990-1991 year followed by a brief profile. All winners, except John Nixon from Texas, were present as guests of the Institute at the June convention in Keystone, Colorado to receive recognition at the Welcome Session Monday, July 1, 1991. Each state vice president served as the host for the collegiate winner. In addition to receiving a plaque from the Scholarship Chairman, Dr. Donald Gentry, each winner receives $750 tuition credit for the coming academic year. As this is a continuing award, the winners from the previous year will receive another $750 for tuition credit in their senior year if they have maintained good academic standing and are recommended by their university. Criteria for these awards to be made in the spring annually is (1) That the award be made to a sophomore student and used as tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U.S. citizen and a resident of the state involved. (3) That the recipient have good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in Western coal as a possible career path. The scholarship program includes curricula other than those in the mining departments, but in the engineering disciplines, such as geology, mineral processing and metallurgy. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his firm. Through annual donations of $100 or more, the Patrons of the Institute fund the scholarship program and the various vice presidents contribute the travel expenses to conventions for these outstanding young collegiates. Donations to this worthwhile program may be made payable to RMCMI Scholar- ship and mailed to the RMCMI Office, 3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 324, Lakewood, CO 80215. Profiles of the 1991 Scholarship Winners follow. [ ] Walter Mengel III University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona Walter has attended the Mining Engineering program at University of Arizona since fall, 1990. He is a very diligent student and has recently been selected student mine foreman for the San Xavier Mine. Walter is secretary of the U. of A. AIME Student Chapter and a student member of the AIME Tucson Chapter. His career interests lean towards western coal mining. [ ] Matthew Madden Colorado School of Mines Golden, CO Matt carries a 2.619 cumulative grade point average in the Mining Engineering Department and ranks 194 in a class of 440. He is involved in a number of school activites such as a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., member of the Resident Hall Association, a Admissions Ambassador, and will be a Resident Hall Director for 1991-1992. Matt is also involved in wrestling and received a Colorado School of Mines Athletic Scholarship in 1990.

Jan 1, 1991

PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Emrick. Mr. Shubart would like to supplement your paper with another article. SECRETARY SHUBART: My paper really should not supplement Mr. Emrick's paper, because I secured some data from him, I knew Mr. Emrick had had a great deal of experience in shearing and I thought he could give you some useful data. (Here Mr. Shubart read the following:) "For the past two years, there has been considerable discussion among coal mining men concerning the advantages of a shearing cut in addition to the undercut, in mine work. We have had a number of requests for information on sheared coal. We were asked questions like these: What percentage increase in lump can be obtained from sheared coal? What has been the experience of mine men who have employed the shearing cut? Is the shearing cut a means of increasing the lump content? If so, is it increased to such an extent as to warrant the installation of shearing machines? Upon investigation it was found that no one could give us any definite information on the subject as no one had weighed separately the grades of coal produced from' the shearing cut. With a view of getting this information first-hand, the Goodman Manufacturing Company built up a shearing machine to be used in experimental work only. The officials of the Troy Coal Company were eager to share in the expense of obtaining this information, so that in May of this year we shipped to their mines our first type 319 shearing machine. The Troy Coal Company operates a mine at Troy, Illinois, in the No. 6 seam and produces about 275 tons daily. The coal seam averages five and one-half feet in thickness. Previous to the arrival of the shearing machine the coal was undercut six feet deep by a' Goodman Shortwall Machine. To break down the coal required two shots in the entries and three in the rooms. The percentage of lump measured over two-inch screens, averaged 58.2 per cent. The conditions of the mine were very favorable for obtaining accurate weights on the amount of lump and slack coal run over the shaker screens. The shearing machine easily cut the entire tonnage of the mine so that all coal dumped into the railroad cars had been produced from a shearing cut, in addition to an undercut. Accurate records were kept of the railroad weights and front this data the percentages of lump and slack were computed. During the month of June the percentage of lump produced over two-inch shaker screens was 69.9 per cent. This result demonstrated that the introduction of the shearing cut had increased the percentage of lump twenty per cent. The entries were driven ten feet wide and the rooms thirty feet wide The shearing cut was made near the center of the face in all places. A hole was drilled in each rib and the coal shot down with one-half the powder required when the places had been undercut only. The coal was broken down to the back of the cut so that very little pick work was necessary to load it out. The benefits derived from the shearing cut were as follows: 1. Increased percentage of lump, thus increasing the average price of coal per ton. 2. Preservation of a tender top due to the decreased amount of explosive used. 3. Facilitated handling of coal by the miner thus increasing the tonnage per man. 4. Eliminated coal yardage in entries and crosscuts of ten feet or less in width for the reason that the shearing cut provides a loose end from which to shoot the coal. This applies to the union fields only, as the non-union mines do not pay for coal yardage. Based on a price of $2.50 for lump coal and $1.25 for slack coal, the average price per ton was increased

Jan 1, 1926

Please note all Proceedings of the Institute were taken verbatim by stenotypists from Hyatt & Associates of Denver and editing has been minimal. MR. MORTENSEN: On behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I take great plea¬sure in saying good morning to you at Vail. With a few clouds in the sky, at least we won't get sunburned. We won't have to worry about our kids in the swimming pool, perhaps. It is delightful for me to have been able to have represented the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute for the year 1982-1983. This has been our 71st year and this is our 79th meeting. In recognizing the attendance here, that dinner we had last night, and some of our entertainment must have gotten to some of us, or it is a little early. But I'm sure as the day goes on, and with the speakers outlined, it will be very beneficial for those who do attend. We do appreciate your attendance. I'd first like to make an introduction of our head table. Doris Finnie, she is our executive secretary. As most of you are aware, Gussie Whiteside retired as secretary. This will be the first time since the Institute started that there has not been a Whiteside present at one of our conventions. I'm sure Gussie would appreciate any calls or letters that any of you would care to make to her. Doris, I might add, has been a great help to me and all of the people who have been working on the program for the Institute this past year. There's been lots of reorganization and we are very pleased with Doris's ability to take hold from Gussie without any waves. Much credit must be given to you Doris for this and we do appreciate the help you have given us and believe me she has kept us out of trouble. Next, we have Art Neill. He is our vice president of the Institute from Montana and he also works with Western Energy Company. We appreciate the help that all of these session leaders and chairmen give to us. We have other names on the head table, but they will fill in as the morning goes on, so we won't bother you with any of those at this time. To set the stage for business, first I would like to call on Doris for a motion to approve the minutes of last year. MS. FINNIE: Thank you, Vernal. Mr. President, I suggest that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the members refer to pages 9 through 80 of the Proceedings for the 78th regular meeting of RMCMI, as published MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Doris. Do we have a motion to so approve? MR. LINVILLE: I so move. MR. MORTENSEN: Loren Linville so approved. Do we have a second? MR. GARR: Second. MR. MORTENSEN: All in favor say aye. (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Those opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. I'm sure glad we didn't have to read those 80 pages. Is Doug Hammer in the audience? He was going to give us a list of new members of the Coal Institute and ask for your approval. But because of his absence, the names will be listed so that you can read them at a later date, I will entertain a motion that we approve the new members who have joined the Institute. Do I so have a motion? MR. BERNSTROM: I would make that motion. MR. GARR: I second. MR. MORTENSEN: Do we have any questions? All in favor¬ (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. Next, we'd like to proceeed with our Nominating committee report from the chairman, George Nugent, and the election of next year's officers. George, would you please take the stand? MR. NUGENT: Mr. President, and members of the Institute, your Nominating committee consists of five past presidents of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From Colorado Roy Coulson; from New Mexico, Bob Wilson; from Utah, Bob

Jan 1, 1983

By I. M. Charles

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: At the request of our Secretary, Mr. Shubart, I am pleased to present the following brief discussion of the Alamo Washery. In order to insure an excellent and uniform preparation of nut coal, the Alamo Coal Company erected last year a modern washery at a cost of about $50,000, in which, since the completion last December, all of the nut coal shipped from the Alamo Mine, has been washed. In part of the workings of the Alamo Mine, the coal is overlaid by a lenticular strata of slate, which invariably falls when the coal is shot down and breaks for the most part into fragments of such size as pass through three-inch round perforations, and are retained on plates having one and a fourth inch round holes with the nut coal. This "draw slate" comprises the principal impurity in the Alamo coal, and to remove it, some bone and a few small fragments of sandstone from the roof and floor, the washery was designed and erected. The few impurities contained in the lamp are readily re-

Jan 1, 1926

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 Charles Gottschalk

Some time after my arrival in Rock Springs to fill a short engagement with The Union Pacific Coal Company, Mr. Dickinson informed me that he had placed me on the program for a paper entitled "Mechanical Loading in Indiana." Since development of mechanical loading operations on a genuine coal producing basis for that section began near Oakland City, Indiana, and rapidly spread over Southern Indiana, Western Kentucky and Southern Illinois simultaneously, the results referred to are in many ways common to all three states. Prior to December, 1922, several attempts at mechanical loading had been registered, notably among which were installations of the Jeffry Entry Driver, and the Meyers-Whaley loader. The object of most of these earlier installations was quick development rather than lower production costs in face loading. In this measure it is claimed the machines were at least partially satisfactory. Three items which seemed to delay rapid progress in the adoption of either machine were, excessive first cost, height of coal seam necessary, and timidity of the operator relative to the labor situation which might develop. When the Joy machine was put on the market in the form of the 4-B.U., with a clearance overall which would perform in coal slightly under five feet in height, and at a cost price of less than one-half that of other machines being sold, many operators were at once ready to take a chance along with the manufacturer. This desire was accentuated by the difficulty to operate coal mines at all at prevailing production costs. This condition also made the coal miner more receptive to machinery which would give added employment to the field. At the convention held in Cincinnati during May, Mr. .Joy stated that about 200 of his machines were in operation at that time. Mr. Whaley said that about 40 of his were in use in coal mines. It is probable that of the above sum 75 machines were installed in Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky. Since that time, possibly 50 more machines of later design have been added. Like many of our troubles, those which seemed most difficult to overcome, proved in the end to have been least of all, and in this case the sup¬posed resistance which labor would advance has been more or less imaginary. In Illinois and Indiana a scale of wages is being accepted which is consistent with average earnings of machine men. The fact that a large number of coal operators want and are buying more loading machines has encouraged mining machinery manufcturers on every hand to devote renewed vigor to the cause and it is generally understood that new types and models are being developed both in factories and mines with the coal industry eager always to see the latest development. I understand that at present the Goodman, the Jeffry, and the Sullivan machinery companies are each offering new designs to meet Indiana and Illinois requirements. It is not strange that with so many installations many were made as a result of an impulse to ride the band wagon without any serious attempt to study the results or draw any conclusions from the experiences of others with loading machinery.

Jan 1, 1924

By H. F. Nash

Coal is the basic necessity of our present-day civilization, and those engaged in the industry, whether miner, day-man, pit boss, tipple boss, superintendent, salesman or operator, have a direct responsibility to the public at large. Our country is blessed with a great supply of Bituminous coal, upon which it must largely depend for its industrial prosperity. Anthracite coal, in its relation to our economic situation, is a small factor, as its ratio of production to Bituminous coal is only about one-sixth. However, within the last ten years, electricity and oil have largely displaced the use of coal in industry, so that the use of Bituminous coal is decreasing, relatively, and the potential production of Bituminous coal has largely increased since the war. High wage scales and high freight rates make the delivered price of coal to the consumer so out of proportion to the cost of electricity and oil -and strikes make the supply of coal so uncertain-that industry is rapidly turning to electricity and oil. The energy in a ton of coal can be transported, by electric current, a distance of 250 miles for 78% of what it costs to ship the coal in bulk, by rail, in the East-and, for about 60% of what it costs in our section of the country. The use of fuel oil, distillate and gasoline, in industry, has increased by leaps and bounds. Especially was this noticeable during the strike this year, as the large packing plants in Kansas City, Omaha and Sioux City (that formerly used nothing but coal) are now practically all using oil. This also supplies to other industrial plants throughout our territory in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska. Many railroads are using oil, as are also the smelters, cement plants, etc., etc. Ten years ago, 100% of the threshing in the state of Kansas was done with coal-today not over 25% of it is done through that means-and so it goes all along the line. The use of our coal is being yearly more restricted in industry. In the case of domestic consumption, the circle is also ever decreasing.' In small towns and on farms, kerosene, gasoline and wood are largely utilized for cooking. For the past four years, along any country road, it is a common occurrence to hear a buzz-saw cutting old fence posts or timbers taken from creek bottoms. Many thousands of tons of coal are displaced each year through the use of corn and cobs. In larger towns, gas plants have been installed, and many housewives use gas-in communities contiguous to natural gas, that is used for industrial and domestic purposes. The time has gone when industrial and domestic consumers or dealers are satisfied to buy anything that is black-competition among the coal-producing states is keen, and will become more so. Eastern and southern fields are turning out splendidly prepared coals of high quality, and with their lower freight rates to competitive territory, will entirely nullify the use. of our Western coal unless-

Jan 1, 1922

Winter Meeting Cosmopolitan Hotel DENVER, COLORADO February 27,28 and 29,1928 Business Meeting 10:OO a. m., February 27th Banquet 6:30 p. m., February 27th Dancing 9 :30 to 1 :00 a. m., February 27th Theatre Party, February 28th Special efforts will be made to care for lady guests

Jan 1, 1927

of our good friends and fellow members: Patrick J. Quealy J. C. Roberts Gilbert Morton Sidney W. Farnham who left the world better for their having lived in it

Jan 1, 1930

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

Jan 1, 2006

The third session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Edward G. Fox, President of the Bitumious Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., at 9:M A.M. He stated he had enjoyed being present at the Institute the past two years, and was honored to be asked to preside at this morning's session. Mr. Fox introduced Cloyd M. "DOC" Smith, Vice President of World Mining Consultants, Inc., Washington, D. C., whose talk, "World Trade in Coal" was illustrated with a number of graphs. (See Index.) M. E. "Shorty" Wade, Assistant Purchasing Agent, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana, California, was introduced and gave a paper on "What Is Required to Realize Profits Through Purchasing." (See Index.) Mr. Fox suggested that all members take an active part in their association. He stated that much more can be done in association work than as a lone wolf. He urged all to support their organization and stay with it. It is for each member's good and not for the good of a few. Carl G. Schilbe, District Manager, Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Ohio, was introduced, and he presented a paper on "Results of a Study in Belt Idler Design -The Perma-Seal Idler." This paper was illustrated with a number of slides. (See Index.) "Operation of A-C Mines," was the topic covered by W. C. Painter, Service Engineer, Joy Manufacturing Company, Price, Utah. (See Index.) Each of the papers was well received, and presented a number of things valuable to all who heard them. Mr. Fox then turned the meeting back to President von Storch who read several announcements of committee meetings, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 A.M. for an afternoon of recreation before the banquet and dance that evening.

Jan 1, 1958

Jan 1, 1974

By Arline Seeger

Overview ? Lime Basics ? NLA & Its Advocacy ? State of U.S. Lime Industry ? Present & Future ? Lime?s Use in Coal?Conversion Plant

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