Search Documents

Mr. Geo. B. Pryde, Chairman; Committee on Safety, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, Rock Springs, Wyoming. Dear Mr. Pryde: In accordance with suggestion in your letter to me of June 21, 1923, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dalrymple and I had a meeting and attached find our contribution to the proposed August report of the Committee on Safety. You will note that we have confined ourselves to matters in connection with explosions and prevention of explosions, in coal mines. If the committee is to report on general safety in coal mines, including accidents from haulage, timbering, rock falls, electricity, etc., we would like to suggest that you ask other members of the committee to specialize on one or more of these subjects. Especially we believe it would be advisable to specialize as to precautions against electrical accidents with giving of data as to maximum voltage, precautions to be taken as to gas ignitions by mining machines at faces, best methods of placing power wires underground, etc.; also give information as to up-to-date safety installations, such as whistle devices notifying of disarrangement of ventilation or devices for quick cutting off of electrical power from mines under certain conditions; also give data as to efficient safety man cars on various pitches, etc. Yours truly, D. HARRINGTON.

Jan 1, 1923

President Heiner opened the final session of the Institute at 9:30 a.m. Frances Leonard read the report of the Auditing Committee. Motion made by Stan Shubart for acceptance of audit and approval. Seconded and carried. R. R. Williams of the Resolutions Committee presented the following resolutions to the, group for their approval: RESOLVED: That the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, in convention assembled, hereby ratify and confirm all official actions of the Officers, the Executive Committee and other committees of the Institute between and including July 3, 1963 and July 1, 1964.

Jan 1, 1964

Jan 1, 1959

Albert M. Keenan, President, Thompson Creek Coal and Coke Corporation, Denver, Colorado, opened the third session of the Fifty-ninth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute at 9:30 a.m., and introduced the first speaker of the morning. Raphael J. Moses, Attorney, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Boulder, Colorado, spoke on "The Opportunity for Coal in Colorado River Basin Development." (For the printed text of Mr. Moses' paper see index.) Stephen F. Dunn, President, National Coal Association, Washington, D. C., was introduced by Mr. Keenan, and he addressed the Institute concerning "Coal and the Washington Scene."

Jan 1, 1963

By D. C. McKeehan

The importance of properly bonded rail joints has received the attention of The National Research Council, whose committee will investigate several methods now used and determine the merits of each as applied to street railways. The results of this investigation should be appreciated no less by the mining industry. Literature on the subject of bonding mine tracks agrees, as a rule, "that the work is poorly done." With present day facilities there is little excuse for inadequate track conductivity, and a job well done must be maintained in order to realize results. Many years ago The Union Pacific Coal Company installed their first haulage locomotive, and at that time used the channel pin bond for joining the rails. The system utilized 500 volts and the, relatively small current for a large amount of power, undoubtedly, contributed to the success of the system. The bonding of both rails was considered imperative in those days, while now the bonding of one, rail is considered sufficient in most instances. The recent installations utilizing 250 volts and correspondingly heavier currents required a more effective method of joining the rails for use as an electrical conductor. The company has used the arc-weld bond since its introduction in 1919. The art of electric welding found great favor for various methods of doing the work. The first arc-weld bonds were placed on the outside of they ball of the rail, but the bonds were ill-adapted to rails lighter than sixty pounds per yard, and the results were that grooved locomotive wheels or derailed cars removed the bonds. Familiarity with the process of electric welding brought forth numerous schemes for joining the rails. In one, instance the rails and splice-plates were welded together and with excellent results for a short time. Track movement and vibration finally broke the welds and the method was dis¬carded. Another scheme consisted of placing a channel pin over each end of an annealed copper wire about twenty inches long. The idea was to develop some way of using short lengths of scrap wire. The pin and wire were then welded to the base of the rail. Numerous joints made in this way are still intact, but successful welds were so exceptional that the practice was abandoned. Some of these bonds were welded to the web of the rail, with the result that practically all rails broke at the weld; however, this is our only record of broken rails with arc-welded bonds. At one time a quantity of No. 2 bare iron wire wasp available and was tried as a bond and proved very satisfactory. Two or three strands twenty inches long were used and were welded to the base of the rail. The method was cheap and effective and of some merit for light rails on temporary track. The use of iron wire was criticized because it did not give a balanced circuit; that is, one having equal carrying capacity for trolley and track circuits; and I am of the opinion that this is not always necessary. The total length of bond that is in circuit is so small that it contributes very little additional resistance to the complete circuit consisting of trolley wire, rails and bonds.

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1964

By Glen A. Knox

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

Jan 1, 1925

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

[ATZ, Inc. American Mining Congress Anaconda Minerals Company Andalex Resources, Inc Arapahoe Energy Consultants Atlas Powder Co Becor Western Inc. Mr & Mrs. Bernard Bernstrom Black Beauty Resouces British Mining Consultants (USA) Limited]

Jan 1, 1988

Past President Robert L. Hair, General Superintendent, Coal Mines, Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. "I will now call the Fifty-Third Regular Meeting of the Institute to order this morning and welcome the members and the guests. I'm on the program to introduce John Peperakis, President of the Institute for this year. I regret to announce that Mr. Peperakis received word this morning of an emergency at his mine and left to attend to this. We hope it is of a minor nature and he will return. (Editor's Note: Please refer to the index for printed text of the President's address which he had intended delivering, had he not been called away.) However, in the meantime, Robert von Storch has graciously consented to act as president until John Peperakis returns. "I needn't tell you who he is. Robert M. von Storch is General Superintendent of Coal Mines and Quarries, Columbia-Geneva Steel Division, United States Steel Corporation, Columbia, Utah. I now present Bob von Storch." Mr. von Storch: "As most of you know, the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cannot compare to the Mining Congress, as it is not a professional organization. It represents the coal operators in New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Montana and Wyoming. We have a group of volunteers to put this together and use this occasion to get together and exchange ideas.

Jan 1, 1957

Jan 1, 1951

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of Nineteenth Meeting 9 Coal Mine Explosions-William -Moorhead 11 "What Do You Mean-`Coal Dust'?"--K. L. Marshall 16 Discussion of Foregoing Papers 17 Shale Dusting-J. A. Smith 21 Discussion 25 Conditions That Make Coal Dust Explosive-T. T. Read 25 General Discussion 27 1-Mechanical Loading Review-Chas. Gottschalk 30 Mechanical Loading in Coal Mines-S. W. Farnham 34 Mechanical Loading Practice at Hanna, Wyo.-T. H. Butler 48 Guessing or Knowing! Which?-Eugene McAuliffe 52 Discussion of Loading Papers 54 Bumps or Squeezed Conditions in Coal Mines-Geo. A. Brown 59 Vertical Cutting-Thos. A. Stroup 62 Mine Fires-Thos. A. Foster 71 Membership List 74]

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT OLIVER: May I have your attention, please, gentlemen? The Forty-Fourth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain, Coal Mining Institute is now In session. I want to say just a few words of welcome to all the delegates this morning, both old and new. There is a large group of men around here I notice who come to this meeting year after year, and it occurs to me that they must be getting something worthwhile out of these meetings, the renewal of old acquaintances, the making of new acquaintances, and the opportunity to find out what is doing in the technical end of the coal business, and what is new. So, we greet you enthusiastically and trust that you will find this meetnig on a par with all those which have gone before and. that each one of you will leave these sessions determined that you will not miss next year but will be back again. So, with that introduction, we will proceed with the business of the convention. As time is fleeing away from us, if there is no objection, I wil lentertain a motion to dispense with the reading of last year's minutes. Will somebody make that motion? MR. H: C. MARCHANT: I move we dispense with the reading of last year's minutes. (The motion was carries unanimously.)

Jan 1, 1948

The Wednesday morning session was opened by President Stanley Shuhart at 9-30 a.m. He called the Chairman of the Auditing Committee. Kenneth Eaton, to report on the financial statement. Mr. Eaton read the data and asked for its approval. It was made, seconded and approved. John Turner, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, submitted the following: RESOLVED: Whereas, in the year since the last convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal mining Institute, the Institute and the cool mining industry generally have suffered the loss through death of the services of: Walter M. Bellairs F. V. Colombo, M.D. George R. Delamater J. H. East, Jr. E. W. Felegy Hugo H. Machin Archie M. Morrison George E. Mills Veloy K. Piccioni

Jan 1, 1969

By Bret K. Clayton

Jan 1, 2004

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of the Twenty-third Meeting 9 Preservative Treatment of Mine Timber at Primero Mine-F. T. Baker 10 Discussion of Treatment of Mine Timber JA Shearing Coal-John H. Emrick 19 Discussion of Shearing Coal 22 Local Chapters 29 Experiments in Increasing the Production at Dawson, New Mexico-Scott Dupont 30 Discussion of Experiment in Increasing Production 33 Report of Safety Committee-Warren C. Bracewell 41 Bureau of Mines Defines a Gassy Mine 58 Mechanical Loading in Coal Mines-S. W. Farnham 59 Discussion of Mechanical Loading 65 Vocational Training-Discussion 69 Accident Rate-Discussion 71 Holmes Safety Association Chapter Plan-J. J. Forbes 73 Washing Domestic Coal-f. M. Charles 78 Discussion of Washing Domestic Coal 81 Safety Work in Western Mines-Discussion 86]

Jan 1, 1926

By Thomas Lien

Session 1 - 1 :45 p.m. June 27,1983 Session Chairman: Robert Diederich, RMCMl New Mexico Vice President MR. DIEDERICH: My name is Bob Diederich. I'm the Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Insitute from the state of New Mexico. I'm manager for the Navajo Mine down in Farmington, New Mexico and also project manager for a new mine that we're starling out called the LaPlata Mine in the same area. I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Tom Lien, who is the Director of Engineering, Western Division of AMAX Coal Company. He is responsible for mine engineering, environmental engineering, permitting, reclamation, planning, design and construction plant engineering, geology exploration, quality control and real estate for the western division. He joined AMAX Coal in 1980 as manager of preparation and quality control and was promoted to the present position in August of 1980. He has a BS in geological engineering from the University of Mines. He previously worked for Kennecott Copper Corporation in Hayden, Arizona from 1965 to 1970. He worked as a mine geologist, mill metallurgist, mine production and quality control engineer. Then he also worked for Kaiser Steel Corporation, Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine in California, 1970 to 1977. Worked as a process engineer and plant superintendent at that place. Then he was employed by Mountain States Research and Development, Tucson, Arizona, 1977 to 1980. Worked as a senior process engineer and operation superintendent. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Tom Lien who will talk to us about in-pit coal crushing. MR. LIEN: Thank you. The official title of my paper is actually: "The Potential for In-pit Crushing and Conveying in the Powder River Basin." The Powder River Basin is one of the world's greatest coal fields and will be an important source of energy for centuries to come. About one-eighth of the total coal producing in the United States comes from the Powder River Basin, and 80% of that production came out of Campbell County, Wyoming last year. The growth potential for this region is projected to be enormous. New technology as well as existing technology will make this region competitive in the decades ahead. Understanding the current status of the Powder River Basin, both the mines and the possible methods for changing the means of material movements within the mines is the subject of this paper. Each mine is unique and must be addressed specifically with respect to the application of new and innovative technology. There have been many articles written in the recent mining journals on in-pit crushing and conveying applications, including costs which are very interesting, enlightening and I recommend it to any company considering such installations. To give a general setting, coal production in the United States for 1982 was about 800,000.000 tons. This production came principally from six regions, the Applachian fields of the eastern states where bituminous and anthracite coals have been mined for almost three centuries, the Midwest located in the upper Mississippi Valley are often typified by huge dragline operations of which AMAX Coal has three right now, the Gulf Coast lignites. feeding mine-mouth power plants, the vast bituminous and sub-bituminous departments of the four-comer states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah and finally the Northern Great Plains lignite fields currently being developed and the sub-bituminous fields of Wyoming and Montana including the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. It is the darker brown right in the center of the photograph. It covers about 18,000 square miles. It's about 200 miles north to south and 90 miles east to west. The shallowest coal beds are on the east, north and northwest edges of the basin with deeper coal beds toward the center in the same kind of relationship. There are about one trillion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, that's the one with 12 zeros after it. A little bit there. It's distributed in many, many seams at varying depths to the current topography. In 1982 about 100,000,000 tons of coal were mined from this basin and 81,000,000 tons came out of Campbell County, Wyoming. The mines that are shown in this picture are basically the mines around the basin edge. The principal area that I'll be talking about is the eastern edge down where it shows Gillette and Campbell County. Geologically the Powder River Basin is the Fort Union formation. The most productive seam is called the Wyodak or Smith-Roland or the Anderson-Canyon, depending upon where you're located. There is about 75 billion tons of coal in the Wyodak of which about 23 billion are considered surface minable today. the coal is Paleocene in age, about 40,000,000 years old. It was once an old Delta region very much like the Mississippi River delta is today. During the 100,000 years that this deposit was formed peat accumulated to a thickness of about 365 feet. It was later buried and turned into sub-bituminous coal. All of the coal mined in the basin is for the electric utility industry. This coal has a typical BTU content of about 8,300 plus or minus about 4,500 BTUs. Sulfur coal is generally less than'/ %, thereby making this coal compliance coal in terms of sulfur dioxide emissions, 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

Jan 1, 1983

forated, allowing the completion of the removal of wash water. When discharged into the washed nut bin, the coal is moist but carries so little water as to not be objectionable to the trade, nor to give any difficulty from freezing during the coldest weather. The rock and bone from the primary jigs is elevated to a 15-ton bin by means of a single strand scraper conveyor 40 feet center to center operating on a 45 degree incline, carrying 12" x 5" scrapers every two feet. This conveyor travels at a speed of 100 feet per minute and has a capacity of 17 tons per hour. From this bin, this material falls into the third or rewash jig similar in all respects to the first two, which discharges the rock waste directly into a 15-ton refuse bin below and the bone into a short dewatering conveyor which delivers into a similar 15-ton bin from which the bone is taken to the powerhouse. The oversize and water from the shaker screen, the water from the dewatering conveyor for both the washed nut and bone, and the sludge and wash water from the three jigs, are delivered by launders to the first compartment of a three-compartment settling tank. Most of the coarser broken coal is deposited in this tank, from which is it continually removed by a bucket elevator carrying 8" x 5" perforated buckets operated on a 60 degree incline at 200 feet per minute, capable of delivering 25 tons per hour to the 50-ton washed coarse slack bin. The water passes successively through the three compartments of the settling tank and from thence through a six-inch pipe to a centrifugal pump, circulating 900 gallons per minute against a 32-foot head. A four-mesh screen 30" x 72" in the third compartment of the settling tank removes the chips of wood, paper, and the other trash, which otherwise would accumulate in the water. Water is provided from the camp water system, deriving water from the well located in an arroyo bed. During the summer months just passed, the water used, has been 108 gallons per ton of raw nut, or 146 gallons per ton of washed nut. The water meter had not been installed last winter, but it is estimated that operating at capacity, the washery will be found to require only about 75 to 100 gallons per ton of raw nut. It has not been found necessary, nor advisable, to attempt to dry the sludge from the settling tank, nor to save the water from leakage of the tanks and bins. The sludge from the jigs is washed into the settling tank and the sludge from the settling tank is washed through a tile drain to the arroyo. The jigs, shaker screen, circulating pump, washed slack elevator, and the rock handling conveyor, are all driven from line shafts driven by one 40 H. P. motor, each jig driven through a clutch. The belt conveyor and the washed nut conveyor, have separate motor drives of five and seven and a half H. P. respectively. The washer is housed in a corrugated iron building, which is partially heated by steam coils. One attendant is required for operation, regulating the feed of the jigs, the supply of water, removal of the rock, and oiling and maintaining the machinery. The rewash jig is operated only intermittently. About eleven per cent by weight of raw nut is removed as waste and four per cent goes to the washed slack bin. No control analyses of the products have been made; the efficiency of the plant being determined only by the physical appearance of the products; but the washery has been a source of pride and satisfaction to all those connected with it. As mentioned before, it has caused no interruption of operation and it has assisted materially in creating an unprecedented demand for ALAMO nut. MR. CHARLES: If there are any questions, I shall be pleased to endeavor to answer them. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Charles, do I understand it is the nut only that is washed there? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LITTLEJOHN: What did you say the size was? MR. CHARLES: Through three inch round perforations, retained on

Jan 1, 1926

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 A. W. Dickinson

Since the day when one of the most progressive of our flat-head for- bears used a pry pole to loosen large rocks to crash upon the head of his, enemy, thereafter making notes of his performance on tablets of stone, the arts of mechanicalization have developed and progressed to the benefit of mankind. In the early coal pits of England the crudest of tools were wielded in the most slavish of toil to win a very small amount of product. In our own country it is but a few years since coal was hewn by negro slaves in the mines of the southland. The past thirty years have brought the use of the mining machine, power drill and locomotive, and we now stand on the brink of the coal mining era that will change the toiler of the mines into a skilled mechanic and render far more safe the winning of the fuel necessary to the nation's need. The ingenuity of our citizens has made it imperative that coal be produced at a lesser cost. Vast supplies of fuel oil have been developed; enormous resources in water power are turning the wheels of many mills and, most commendable but distressing to the coa.1 producers, the high price of coal has resulted in efforts and accomplishment in fuel economies unheard of a short five years ago. The railroads of the United States alone in 1924 accomplished more hauling with $30,000,000 less in coal bills than in 1923. The loading of coal by machines has been under investigation and trial for some time past and in an effort to have its men informed of the practice of the eastern coal fields, The Union Pacific Coal Company sent the writer through a number of states to view as many operations as possible. Notes were taken of machines and processes seen and time was spent with engineers of the various coal companies; also with the United States Bureau of Mines Engineers, particularly Mr. Edwin H. Johnson, who devoted one year to the most careful study of the mechanical loading of coal. The writer wishes, at this time, to acknowledge the helpfulness of the information acquired through contact with Mr. Johnson.

Jan 1, 1925