Search Documents

Jan 1, 1929

Jan 1, 1963

By D. C. McClure

MR. McCLURE: Mr. Chairman, you sprang a surprise on me; I really came over here for a good time. Gentlemen, I am not at all qualified to pose as an expert on pulverized fuel; I have merely been making some rather interesting observations, and unfortunately at the present time, a great deal of substantial data, the technical data, I don't happen to have with me; it is still in the process of being calculated, but I will be very glad to tell you some of the observations as I have made them, and in as truthful and complete a way as I can. The question of how we would handle fuel became a very pressing subject in this new Valmont electric plant, which is now under progress. We have studied the methods of burning fuel for a number of years on different types of stokers at the existing plants in Denver; we are burning it with a natural draft chain grate and with underfeed and with forced draft chain grates, and I am very frank to confess at the present time that I have no answer as far as stokers are concerned for a better solution of the problem of burning lignite. In other words, I could not tell you that this or that is a better type of stoker to use for that coal. However, to boil the thing down, after considerable trials, the underfed stoker was chosen as the one most adaptable for the utilizing of lignite fuel if stokers are to be used. In other words, the chain grate was put aside. I might say in support of the chain grate, the prime reason for which that type of stoker was condemned, as far as lignite goes, is the initial investment charge and the large maintenance which is involved.

Jan 1, 1923

CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Some of the members will want to question Mr. Farnham on some of the things he has brought tip, so we will throw the meeting open for discussion. I am quite sure Mr. Farnham will be willing and glad to answer any questions that may be put to him. MR. HOLMAN: I would like to ask Mr. Farnham a question in regard to the Duckbill: How wide a face will it operate without moving the bill? MR. FARNHAM: The Duckbill is a device that was developed in the Union Pacific Mine at Rock Springs, within the last few months, and it is shaped something like, a dustpan, with discharge throat in the rear. They made one seven feet wide and found it was too wide, and the one they are using now is between three and four feet in width. The front section of the conveyor, which attaches to the duckbill, meshes into it to form a sliding section, and the front end of the Duckbill is pushed by the upper segments. I saw one used in a room twenty-four feet wide, and they drew it back after they cleaned out one room and pushed it forward again. MR. HOLMAN: You have no arrangement other than ratchet work? MR. FARNHAM: The ratchet is for forward working and back; the sections are made 12 or 13 feet long, and the stroke of the conveyor automatically works the ratchet; they can ratchet it back; it is a hand device. MR. HOLMAN: They just swing the end of the conveyor across the face to pick up the loose coal? MR. FARNHAM: Yes; they are also planning to use it endwise along the panel face, that and the room work both are quite new in their application, and I do not think the Union Pacific is giving out any results as yet, because the system has not been in use long. MR. HOLMAN: We are planning on putting one in very shortly. MR. HALL: I understand they can swing it over 30 degrees one way or the other, and it goes the same way easily because of the continual jar of the back and forward motion on a 60-degree swing. SECRETARY SHUBART: Take on a comparatively long conveyor, you can get quite a sweep, a large part of the circle. The Duckbill could command quite a large range. For a 12-foot entry, take a four-foot wide advance through the middle of the shot coal, with a 12-foot advance, ratchet back, swing the Duckbill to the rib and repeat; but I do not think they could get as much as 60 degree. on the end of the Duckbill without curving further back. The conveyor is light and not normally set on any permanent foundation. I saw one of Mr. McCarty's first machines, a rather rudimentary one, clean tip a 12-trot entry, 21 tons of coal, in 16 minutes, three men at the face and one at the loading end. MR. FARNHAM: The average time to clean the entries is about an hour-to clean up good-it wouldn't take but a short time; that is why they get this record of several cuts a shift. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Farnham? MR. HOLMAN: We were discussing this entry driving in regard to the entry loader; an entry loader in advance work, just what you have to do to place the jackbars with the sheave-blocks? Do you dig along the ribs after the coal is shot or do you have any other scheme that could be worked out to a good advantage? MR. FARNHAM: This record is a report I have just received from our Chicago office, without the full details, which I have written for. I am sorry I cannot give you the details. This was an Indiana or Pennsylvania mine, near Pocahontas, not the one where they had an accident. I assume they set the jacks ahead and swung and dumped the coal partly out with a scoop and partly by hand, but the application for that for entry driving is entirely new. The reports stated that they anticipated using that as a standard method of entry driving in the future. I will be glad to see that you get a copy of it when I get the report completed. MR. MONAY: Mr. Shubart, did you say they loaded 12 tons in 16 minutes? SECRETARY SHUBART: Twenty-one tons. MR. MONAY: How long did it take to change the machinery out of there

Jan 1, 1926

Mr. Robert Von Storch opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Von Storch: As a matter of fact, I am very much surprised to see many of these faces. The way you were acting last night I did not expect to see so many but you are evidently all right, and survived. This morning's session is the ?RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT? theme, and our first speaker- (and we made a little switch) - is Jack Huebler, Associate Director, Research Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Ill. The switch is because of a projector problem. Jack Huebler was born in Michigan and received degrees in Chemical Engineering and Mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He joined the Surface Combusion Corp. immediately and was with them for 20 years, rising to the head of research. He took leading roles in the invention and development of many heat using processes involving gas chemistry combustion and metallurgy. The now famous Erie Mining Taconite Pellet Process was one of these. He pioneered in gas carburizing and in the preparation and use of prepared atmospheres. He specialized in the heat transfer aspects of many new industrial metal heating processes. He left Surface 5 years ago to join IGT.

Jan 1, 1966

[Page Vernal Mortensen, RMCMI President 1982-1983 2 RMCMI Officers 1982-1983 4 Treasurer's Report 198 1-82 5 Remembrance of Deceased Members 6 Roster of Advertisers 7 President Ira E. McKeever's Address 9 1982 New Member Listing 10 "Which Shall it be - Pity or Pride?" Keynote Address, Dr. William S. Banowsky 17 "Don't Desert the American Dream - Fulfill it!" Carl Terzian 22 "The Image of the Coal Industry" Symposium, Charles W. Margolf, Chairman 33 The Honorable Michael Enzi 34 Harris D. Sherman 38 Robert Golten 40 Ralph Looney 43 "Sure You Have an Image - But What Kind?", Carl Terzian 46 Resolutions 77 Advertisements 79 Acknowledgment, Appointment 111 Invitation to 1983 RMCMI Meeting 112]

Jan 1, 1982

By D. C. McKeehan

The use of electric power was introduced in this field in the year 1892. The initial installation being an engine-driven generator and one nine-ton haulage locomotive using 500-volts direct current. Reference to this locomotive appears in the issue of COAL AGE for February 24, 1921. For a large coal field, the conversion to electricity has been very complete, there being no compressed air machines in service and but one steam driven hoist, that at No. 1o mine and located within fifty feet of the present power plant boiler room. Two eight-ton haulage locomotives, installed in 1896 and still in use, justifies the service and the equipment. These mines used the pioneer types of electric cutting and drilling machines, the story of which is, no doubt, familiar to you. The extensive use of electric power began in 1900, when there was installed four 400 k.w., 500-volt direct current engine-driven generators. These were cross-compound machines and operated non-condensing. By 1910 the mines had developed main haulage entries of several miles in length and a working territory of about six square miles in area. The necessity of supplying adequate power at the working face required a local power supply from motor-generator sets in various parts of the mine to supplement the power furnished by the engine-driven generators. The power to these motor-generator sets was supplied by a 300 k.w. high pressure non-condensing turbo-generator delivering 2300 volts, 60 cycle, three-phase current. This marks the beginning of the use of alternating current for mining purposes. In 1913 new mines were being developed at Reliance, seven miles distant, and the plant was enlarged to accommodate a 750 k.w. low pressure, condensing turbine, utilizing the exhaust steam from the cross-compound engines and the 300 k.w. turbine. Transformers were installed for supplying Reliance with power at 13,200 volts. In the course of time the old engines began to dismantle themselves by throwing various pieces, such as cylinder heads, about the building, damaging walls and switchboards, and created a general feeling of unrest among those who had to do with power production. The limitations of the old engines that had given admirable service for ten years were recognized. The source of exhaust steam became questionable and in 1915, a 1000 k.w. high pressure condensing turbine was installed in order that a more general use could be made of motor-generator sets for the direct current supply. The plant at that time containing a 1000 k.w., a 750 k.w., and a 300 k.w., in alternating current generators, supplemented

Jan 1, 1921

By E. H. McCleary

The Alamo Mine The Alamo mine is located about seventeen miles northwest of Walsenburg, Colorado, on the Loma Branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad, in the foothills of the Black Mountains of Huerfano County. Prospecting Mr. W. B. Lewis of New York City, president of the Oakdale Coal Company and also president of the Alamo Coal Company first became interested in this property in 1920. After all natural features of the surface had been carefully examined by Mr. Lewis, he was convinced that the property was underlaid with coal seams. Plans for prospect drilling were made at once and this drilling was started late in 1921. In all, eight drill holes were put down to the Trinidad sandstone which underlies the coal measures in this field. These drill holes in general, showed very satisfactory results. Two workable coal seams were penetrated by most of these drill holes, the upper seam being six and one half feet thick and the lower seam having a thickness of ten and one-half feet. The two seams are separated by forty feet of sandstone and shale. Analyses of the seams proved each to be of a very high grade bituminous coal possessing hardness much above other bituminous coals, and having very bright lustrous appearance. Tests of more than a year's duration proved the coal to store excellently in closed bins and also in open bins where coal is exposed to elements. The drill hole data further showed the coal seams to pitch more than fifty per cent or about twenty-six and one-half degrees. The pitch direction being approximately South 65 degrees East. The drill holes further proved the coal seams did not outcrop at any point on the property, and no evidence of coal outcrop has been found in near vicinity. A splitting and pinching out of seams was found to occur some two hundred to three hundred feet of theoretical outcrop at very Western boundary of property. The most Easterly or No. 6 drill hole has a depth of eight hundred fifty feet to floor of lower coal seam. The Trinidad sandstone was found to be immediately under the lower coal seam, and the Pierre shales lying under this sandstone. Plans for Development and Sinking Having obtained sufficient data, plans for development of the property were carefully made sometime in advance of the actual opening of the mine. Every condition was carefully studied and the maximum production of clean and well prepared coal at as low a cost as possible during the entire life of mine was kept uppermost in the minds of all. The life of mine is estimated at approximately fifty years. It was decided to open up the lower and thicker seam first, and due to the pitch and other conditions a slope opening was decided upon for its extraction. The pitch of the coal having been found to be from fifty to sixty per cent or twenty-six to thirty degrees, the plan of driving the slope directly down the pitch of seam was eliminated and a plan that would give a more economical grade was decided upon. To obtain a lesser grade, a point several hundred feet west of-and at a less elevation than the theoretical outcrop of coal seam was selected for the slope opening. (Fig. 18.) To have driven directly down the pitch of coal seam would also have given the slope an uneven grade as the pitch of coal seam varied as it approached the crop. From this point of opening, the slope was to be driven on a thirty-one per cent, or' about seventeen degree pitch to intersect coal seam in No. 6 drill hole, a distance through the Pierre shales and Trinidad sandstone of two thousand five hundred fifty feet, the slope to be driven practically due East

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

The second annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Performance Evaluation was held in conjunction with the 1993 RMCMI Convention at Beaver Creek. [ ] Six teams participated in this year's evaluation; BHP Minerals, Navajo Mine, Fruitland. NM; BHP Minerals - LaPlata Mine. LaPlata, NM; BHP Minerals - San Juan Mine. Waterflow. NM; The Coteau Properties Company - Freedom Mine, Beulah. ND; Cordero Mining Company, Gillette, WY; and The Falkirk Mining Company - Falkirk Mine. Underwood, ND. The Western Energy Company of Colstrip, MT was represented through observers and evaluators. [ ] Realistic industrial related scenarios, closely simulating the stress of actual rescue incidents, were provided by members of the Eagle Valley Ambulance Service. Five different scenarios were presented to each team on the first day of the evaluation and three on the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the scenario site. The scenarios were going on simultaneously and each team was unaware of the circumstances until they entered the scene. Interested onlookers were afforded the opportunity of viewing the actual simulated rescue operations as they occurred. The teams received valuable pointers and direction from the ream of evaluators following each scenario. They were are also given the opportunity to observe the other teams in action and to meet with the members of all the teams to share information and ideas during team meetings per the predetermined schedule. The primary goal is to recognize current rescue skills, knowledge, and abilities of participating teams. In doing this, each team was provided with individual evaluations and a path for improvement as needed. Each team was recognized for their efforts at an awards breakfast on the final day of the evaluation. New innovations in rescue equipment were introduced and demonstrated for interested teams following the awards program. The importance of progressive training such as what we are witnessing at evaluations during the RMCMI conventions cannot be stressed strongly enough. These teams are the providers of immediate rescue and medical care for victims of accidents at their respective properties. Every mining operation has the potential for very serious accidents due to immense size of equipment and mining logistics. These rescue teams must be prepared to act with the most immediate, professional and knowledgeable actions to save lives and prevent further injuries. Safety is a primary concern of every mining operation and the mine site rescue team is an integral part of that safety effort. The evaluation program is very appreciative for the financial support of the following businesses to enable this program to continue: Safety Master, Acme Welding, North American Coal, Triune. Cummins, OK Tire. Modern Industrial, The Industrial Company, Mine Safety Appliances (MSA), Biomarine, Personal Safety Enterprises, Inc., and Blattner Construction, Thank you again for your much needed assistance. Plan to be a part of next year's Mine Rescue Evaluation Program as a participant or an observer. You will be amazed at the skill levels of the Rescue Teams. See you next year! Linda G. Ash The falkirk Mining Company [ ]

Jan 1, 1993

[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

Jan 1, 1959

By R. Dawson Hall

*This paper was not read as it arrived too late. In the beginning of the last century "cottage industry" gave way to the factory system, and at present manufacturing that was once performed in homes is done wholly in factories. Division of labor came into being at the same time. In earlier years rarely more than a half-dozen men worked at the home of the master workman. Each group performed all the labor involved in changing crude material to the finished article, and many of the masters in a cottage industry themselves took the raw material and converted it by their own efforts into a highly specialized product ready for the market. Mining has in a degree moved in the same direction. But for the most part every man still has his own room. Pick miners in many places get their cars at the room neck, push them to the face, undercut their coal, drill their shot-holes, load and fire them, complete the breaking down of their coal, fill their cars, push them to the entry and also test their roof for weak spots, examine for gas, timber their rooms, bail them out and lay their own track. Mining is still in a way a "cottage" industry, only the cottage is a room in the mines instead- of a home. The men who gather the coal and take it to the tipple are in a measure like the middlemen who went from cottage to cottage and gathered the product of the owners or "masters", to use the term then prevalent. The change in ordinary industry from old methods to new came with machinery. The machines then introduced needed power for their operation, and distribution of power from house to house was too great a task for those times. Power could not readily be taken to machinery where water power only was available. It was necessary for the machinery and its workers to go to the power. Nor when steam was harnessed could every cottage have its steam engine. Compressed air and electricity had not arrived, and con-

Jan 1, 1922

By Todd A. Myers

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

Jan 1, 2008

By C. B. Huntress

"We have ourselves to blame in the steel industry for our condition." These words were addressed twelve days ago by James A. Farrell, President of the United States Steel Corporation, to his "comrades" at a meeting of the American Iron and Steel Institute. They carry a note of challenge to all industry, and particularly to the coal industry, where they point the way to the pressing need for operators everywhere to get their feet under one table. It is that note which I would stress to all producers. You have yourselves to blame for your condition. True, there are inter-district competition and competition of substitute fuels, but they'll always be with us, more or less, and the only sensible, sane course is to remove the evils within our respective districts, which can be done only by constructive effort along cooperative lines. It's the same story in Alabama, the same in Illinois and elsewhere. The larger number of the men gathered here are at the front, as it were, in the business of mining coal. They are the men who are doing a remarkable operating job. And naturally, the sessions of this annual meeting treat of news from the front, of technical problems. But, as in actual warfare, those at the front are often uninformed of developments in the rear. They keep on fighting without fully sensing the significance of a disaster at headquarters. You've played your eighteen holes today and evidenced the efficiency of your technique in the, production of coal. It is not amiss to take advantage of this moment, the nineteenth hole, to ponder over what it's all about. After all, what do improvements in the art of mining mean if business policies engulf you in red ink? To the extent that mechanization is a factor in increased overhead, which in turn increases the pressure to produce regardless of market demand, it only aggravates our troubles unless there is the controlling influence of coordinated effort.

Jan 1, 1931

By F. M. Van Tuyl

The oil industry had its inception in the United States in 1859 when the first oil well was drilled by Col. Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania. From, a production of 2000 barrels for that year there was a slow but steady increase, with some fluctuations, up to 1901 for which year the output was approximately 69,389,194 barrels. Since that time the production has increased with leaps and bounds due to the rapid rise of the automotive industry, the widening use of oil as a fuel under boilers and the development of the. Diesel engine. The production for 1921 is estimated to have been 469,639,000 barrels. During the same year more than 125 millions of barrels were imported from Mexico. The oil industry, including the production, transportation, refining and distribution of petroleum and its products, is now the third largest in the country. Present Condition of the Industry During and immediately after the war the demand for petroleum exceeded the domestic production plus the imports from Mexico with the result that our storage oil was heavily drawn upon. Prices for crude exceeded all previous levels in the history of the industry. Pennsylvania crude sold for $6.10 per barrel and Mid-Continent crude for $3.50. Such prices stimulated wildcatting greatly with the result that several important new oil pools were discovered. Then as production increased the depression came which caused a large falling off in consumption. Pennsylvania crude fell to $2.25 per barrel and Mid-Continent to $1.00. Large oil companies such as the Standard, Sinclair and Empire took advantage of the situation, erected additional storage tanks and bought up millions of barrels to hold until better prices returned. Prices have already improved owing to a better market, but the domestic production coupled with the Mexican importations is still in excess of the demand with the result that the surplus is being stored. At the close of the year 1921, the U. S. Geological Survey estimates that there were 183,890,000 barrels of crude in storage in this country, the largest stocks in the history of the industry, yet an amount sufficient to supply the country for only 119 days at the present rate of consumption. Price reductions are again anticipated in some quarters but in view of the probable falling off in the Mexican output in the near, future due to the rapid rate of exhaustion of several of the most important pools and in view of the expected increase in consumption of gasoline and kerosene during the spring and summer months it is more likely that the present price level will be maintained. Present Sources of Domestic Supply Seven major oil fields are recognized by the U. S. Geological Survey in the United States. These are the Appalachian, Lima-Indiana, Illinois, Mid-Continent, Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountain and California. Two of these, Mid-Continent and California, supply about seventy-five per cent of the present total domestic output

Jan 1, 1922

By D. Harrington

My acquaintance with rock, dusting as a preventive of wide spread explosions in coal mines dates from the fall of 1914 and the spring, summer and fall of 19.1.5 when I had an opportunity to observe the staging (both before and after) of several of the explosions in the Experimental Mine at Pittsburgh and saw violent explosions stopped by rock dust, also saw violently explosive coal dust made insensitive by use of rock dust to ignition or to propagation or spreading of an explosion. From this work I became a convert to rock dusting though I had previously been a firm believer in watering methods and am yet a firm believer that watering, methods have a well defined place in promoting the health and safety of our coal miners. In 1916, while in the Bureau of Mines service, I made an underground study and a report to the Bureau on the first extensively rock dusted mine, in the United States, the Delagua Mine of the Victor American Fuel Company near Trinidad, Colorado, there being then some ten miles of entry in that mine which had been kept well rock-dusted for at' least four years The dust used was " adobe" or surface soil screened from sweepings of the dry surface wagon roads through a screen with one-eighth inch openings, the dust giving about 20% through 200 mesh and about, 10% of approximately 1/8-inch size. The material was collected during dry weather by contract at $1.00 per ton (sacked) and was accumulated in summer and stored for winter and spring use. The dust was scattered through haulage entries by hand or by an electrically operated blower and was held on shelves along the ribs or between and on timber caps with from 1/4-inch to 2-inch thickness of the rock dust. The cost of maintaining the 10 miles of entry well dusted was about $1,500.00 per year or $150.00 per mile per year. Total cost of 'the rock dusting over a four-year period was about $6,000.00, about 2,500 tons of dust being used and 2,000,000 tons of coal produced; the above cost included about 1,200 days labor dusting at $2.50 per day, 2,500 tons of rock dust at $1.00. per ton and miscellaneous labor, material, repairs, power cost, etc., amounting to about $500.00. The cost per ton of coal produced for keeping 10 miles of entry rock dusted being about 3/10c. In addition to the rock dusting, some sprinkling was done, chiefly in the interior of the mine, costing about 2/5c per ton; and due to spilling of coal and sifting of coal .dust through loose cars on the entry floors, the floors of haulage roads were kept sprinkled between and just outside-the rails. Total cost of sprinkling and rock dusting was about .7/10c per ton much less of course than the same work would now cost. Between January, 1916, and July, 1924, my duties in the Bureau of Mines allowed me, to follow up and make underground inspections and reports on more than 20 coal mine explosions and fires in a number of states of the union and in this work a large number of samples of road, rib, and other dusts were taken to ascertain the effect of moisture, roof and floor dirt, etc., upon the propagation or the stopping of the explosion; also a large part of my work was to obtain evidence pro and con as to influences affecting the disasters and very prominent among those influences were the occurrence or use of water, water drippers, or ponds, as well as of sand, roof or floor rock or dust on floor, ribs, etc. The Dolomite explosion near Birmingham, Alabama, in November, 1922, and the Dawson No. 1 Mine Explosion at Dawson, New Mexico, in February, 1923 (at both of which I made underground inspection and report) both starting on main intake haulage road and both in mines which had fairly elaborate watering systems, convinced me that at least as far as freezing can occur on main intake air courses which also act 2s main .haulage ways, rock dusting is likely to be much more dependable than sprinkling. In making up the report on the Dawson Explosion to the Bureau of Mines (copy of which also

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1923

By L. C. Clare

In a meeting of this kind where everyone present is connected with or engaged in coal mining, and where each one is present with the set purpose of learning new thoughts or ideas, the subject of the saving of life by any method in the industry is a vitally interesting and important one. On the cost per ton basis, it mounts to a formidable figure especially so during these days of depression and stagnant, or no business. But entirely outside of the human side of the question, to lose lives would cost more than saving them. Your insurance under haphazard safety measures would mount, loss of time due to accidents would impair efficiency among employees and the breaking of the morale of the staff, due to criticism of lax methods would cost more than an efficient safety program. Taking it for granted that most of you are looking at the question from the viewpoint of a yearly or five-year cost sheet, and that at this time you are doing all that can be done without bringing a ruinous cost upon your companies, I can offer only one suggestion: Raise the quality of your safety, or lower the cost. In this meeting, there should be no question of standing still or retreating in the quality of safety, so I will amend the suggestion with "Raise the quality and lower the cost." We have learned that when the coal beds were forming, nature sealed them in with a strata of mud that the ages have turned to shale, sealing them effectively against the deteriorating influences of the air. Mudite is carrying out nature's plan of coal preservation to the inside of the coal mine. Text books teach us that a large proportion of the vegetation that forms our present coal beds grow on what might be termed mud, later falling and being buried practically where it grew by mud, then on being subjected to heat, pressure and time, was changed to coal. The mud being subjected to the same three forces forms our present shale stratas. Now if nature saw fit to use this solidified mud as a preservative through countless centuries, isn't it reasonable to expect that occasional coatings on the ribs and roofs of entries and rooms will aid materially in preserving our coal and coal dust? Nature took mud and formed it into shale; mudite takes the shale, reduces it into dust, adds water and makes a mud, applies it to the ribs, roofs and floors of the mine in a thin coating

Jan 1, 1925

CHAIRMAN I. N. BAYLESS: Will you come to order, gentlemen? They told me that you had a very interesting meeting yesterday and a good time last night. Our program is rather long this morning, and I am not going to take up any of your time, as we got started a little late. I will ask Mr. Marchant to make a few announcements. (Announcements.) SECRETARY MARCHANT: I just noticed in this morning's paper a rather serious accident at Hobbs, New Mexico, in which George Kaseman, a former President of the Institute, and a loyal member ever since its organization, was killed. I think that this meeting should go on record and prepare a resolution of condolence, etc., and with your per- mission we will have the Committee on Resolutions do that. I assume that will be all right. CHAIRMAN BAYLESS: Our first paper and discussion this morning will be Education of the Miner, by Thomas Allen, Chief Coal Mine Inspector of Colorado. Mr. Allen.

Jan 1, 1938