Search Documents

[HORACE MOSES President Gamerco, New Mexico BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado ROBT. L. HAIR Vice-President for Colorado VIRGIL R. McKNIGHT Vice-President for New Mexico A. E. GIBSON Vice-President for Utah THOS. FOSTER Vice-President for Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: J. B. DICK Walsenburg C. M: BILLINGTON Lafayette NEW MEXICO: W. C. HOLMAN Dawson ROBT. WYPER Gallup UTAH: R. R. KIRKPATRICK Sunnyside GEO. A. SCHULTZ Latuda WYOMING EDWARD BOTTOMLEY Kleenburn QUINCE RICE Superior]

Jan 1, 1926

Preceding the regular meeting, "Harvest from the Sky" was shown, an action-packed movie demonstrating how man and machines provide Denver with water. This vividly colored picture illustrated the magnitude of the job, highlighting the construction scenes at the 23-mile Harold D. Roberts tunnel, many scenes of which were taken underground at the face. Presiding was Mr. John Peperakis, Alanager, Sunnyside Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Sunnyside, Utah, who called the regular meeting to order at 9:30. Mr. Peperakis introduced Mr. Otto A. Wiesley, Chairman, Industrial Commission and Utah Labor Relations Board, Salt Lake City, Utah, who spoke on "Functions and Policies of the Industrial Commission of the State of Utah." It was with obvious pride that he discussed the Medical Panel in use and the successful operation of the Indus- trial Commission in Utah, stressing the fact that the most important word in their vocabulary was "cooperation." (The text of his address appears later in these proceedings; see index for page number.)

Jan 1, 1959

The final session on Wednesday morn¬ing was given over to a panel discussion of safety questions submitted by members of the institute. Mr. Murray presided, and Lyman Fearn, chief, Wyoming Dept. of Mines & Minerals, Rock Springs, Wyo., was moderator. Members of the panel were: John A. Garcia, chief mine inspector, New Mexico; Leonard Ford, mine foreman, Frederick- mine, CF&I, Valdez, Colo.; A. C. Moschetti, chief, coal mine inspection branch, USBM, Denver; Kirk V. Cammack, mining engineer, USGS, Denver; Joel N. Van Sant, chief engineer, St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Coal Co., Raton, N. M.; Emery Olsen, safety engineer, coal mine and quarries, U. S. Steel Corp., Dragerton, Utah; F. J. Peternell, safety engineer, Union Pacific Coal Co., Rock Springs; and J. J. Reddy, mine inspector, Colorado Dept. of Mines, Grand Junction, Colo. On a question concerning the effect of roof-bolting on the maintenance of a breakline in pillar removal, Mr. Van Sant reported that some experience at his company's mines indicate that wood supports are not necessary to make the break although shooting is sometimes done to get it. Furthermore, bolting improves the roof in these pillar areas and extraction has increased about 20%. Mr. Fearn concurred in describing operations in parts of Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1953

The Tuesday Morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. E. C. DeMoss, Vice President, Utah Construction & Mining Company, San Francisco, California. Mr. DeMoss introduced Mr. C. Howard Hardesty, Jr., Senior Vice President, Con¬tinental Oil Company, New York, N. Y. Mr. Hardesty spoke on the "Relationship of Coal to Progress in Oil Industry." Mr. Hardesty was born in Fairmont, West Virginia, 1922. He is an attorney by profession; he attended Mercerburg Academy in 1939 and received a Bachelor of Science degree from Duke University, 1943. He then served three years in the U. S. Navy and returned in 1946 to obtain his LL.B. from West Virginia University in 1949. Mr. Hardesty has had an outstanding professional career which started as a partner of the law firm of Furbee & Hardesty, Fairmont, West Virginia. He subsequently was West Virginia's State Tax Commissioner and President of the West Virginia Bar Association. In 1963 lie became General Counsel of Consolidation Coal Co., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; in 1964 he was made Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Consolidation Coal. In 1966 he was elected Executive Vice President of Consol, and, shortly after it was merged with Continental Oil Co., he was made Senior Vice President of Continental. He is married to the former Doris Wilson; they have two children and reside in Greenwich, Connecticut.

Jan 1, 1968

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. George A. Nugent, Manager Mining Division, Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. The first speaker was Mr. Jack Huebler, Vice President Research, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Huebler joined IGT in 1961 as Director of IGT's contract research program, a major part of which is IGT's extensive coal gasification work. He is also an adjunct associate professor at Illinois Institute of Technology, teaching gas utilization. Before joining IGT, Mr. Huebler spent 20 years with Surface Combustion Corporation where he was chief research engineer. He developed, designed, and constructed a wide variety of heat processing equipment and the associated chemical processes and was involved in applied research in heat treating, gas chemistry, and gas-solids reactions. He has carried out extensive research on the heat treating of ferrous metals, oil gasification and gas combustion, and has made major contributions to the development, construction, and operation of large-scale industrial furnace equipment. He received B.S. degrees in 10th chemical engineering and mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He has 60 publications including 15 patents. He is also a world traveler in the field of engineering. Mr. Huebler's subject "Gasification of Western Coals." (See Index for printed text of Mr. Huebler's paper.)

Jan 1, 1972

By J. A. Smith

The topic assigned me by the Chairman of the Institute, "Safety Practices in Franklin and Williamson Counties, Illinois," I fear will necessarily resolve itself into a paper on shale dust, its application and the results obtained. I returned .only last week from a three weeks trip through these counties at which time, through the courtesy extended me by the operators, I had ample opportunity to visit and inspect many of the largest mines in the field, some of which are among the largest in the United States. With the exception of shale dust and ventilation, I see but vary few instances where the Illinois mines are further advanced in safety precautions than the western mines, and in some respects I believe the operators of the West are further advanced in safety methods than their eastern brothers. Great care is exercised in handling of all ventilation currents. This is an aboslute necessity, as this field is quite gaseous, and the peculiar geological structure of the overlying and underlying strata makes airtight seals very

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Before we open the discussion on the Utah mining laws, I want to bring out what I consider a slight misunderstanding on some of the things that I said this forenoon relative to our comparison of accidents. I did not mean to infer that we, as mine officials, are satisfied we have done the best we can to eliminate the accidents, when I was talking about a four-to- one comparison. I do not want any- one to get the idea in their heads that I do not think we are doing all we can. There is not any of us who can state that, even if we better these figures. It is the general understanding that these figures are based upon ratios per thousand man shifts and not upon the tonnage basis that we use. If it were based upon a tonnage basis, I think the figures would be pretty nearly reversed, for we are producing from two to four tons more per man than they do in Great Britain. The discussion will now be continued as I said this morning. There is a gentleman in the audience here that is as guilty of making these laws as I was, and I am quite sure when speaking he will confine himself to the subject of Utah Mining Laws and the prospective results. Before Mr. Monay starts with his paper, I want it understood that this discussion must be finished by 2:30 for the reason that we have still quite a lot of business before us this afternoon.

Jan 1, 1925

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

Jan 1, 2006

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

Jan 1, 1982

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

PRESIDENT WHITESIDE: I am sure we are very grateful indeed for this very interesting talk that Mr. McClure has given us. If anyone has any questions to ask Mr. McClure I am sure he will be glad to answer them at this time. MR. WEITZEL: I want to ask Mr. McClure whether in the instance he described by-passing the drier, whether there was any rest period between the crusher and the furnace, whether the powdered coal that was not dry was allowed to rest in the pipe or was blown directly into combustion chambers. MR. McCLURE: Yes, it moved directly; there might have been some difference had we given it an opportunity to rest. We just had to get in and get out so as not to interfere with operations. MR. WEITZEL: Your idea is, even though you did use a high moisture lignite, you could store it under water if you eliminated surface moisture later. That is a new idea to me; I always had thought that you had to reduce the moisture down under 2 per cent, and to try to store it with anything more than that, any higher moisture, you would have to break the stuff loose again, as it gets so hard it won't move. MR. McCLURE: It might develop I am absolutely wrong; I am just saying what I observed, and I may have had some unusual condition, which I did not detect; something may actually develop which will make my statement of drying lignite entirely wrong. It was quite a surprise to me, surprise to every-

Jan 1, 1923

By James J. Bryja

The production capabilities of today?s longwall systems have resulted in significant increases in retreat rates. This has in turn resulted in a heightened demand on panel development rates to assure that subsequent panels are completed in time to avoid a longwall production outage. As a means of reducing the pressure on the panel development activity a trend has developed towards the use of wider face lengths. The aim of using a wider face is to reduce the longwall retreat rate without sacrificing productivity and thereby reduce the pressure on increasing panel development rates. However, as the face width increases so too does the number of hydraulically powered roof supports that are required to control the longwall face roof. This increase in the number of units inherently translates into increases in the level of required maintenance relative to the multitude of mechanical and hydraulic components, and an increase in the time required for tear-down and installation time during the moves between panels. An obvious method of mitigating the maintenance and move-time impacts of wider faces is to employ the use of individual roof supports having a wider center-to-center spacing. This practice would serve to minimize the number of roof supports and maximize the time availability for longwall face production. With this target in mind a joint research project with DBT was initiated in 1998 to study the feasibility of using 2 m wide shields to replace the then standard 1.75 m wide shields. After four years of comprehensive work, the technical team from DBT and RAG American Coal completed the design and development of a prototype shield that would later become part of the world?s widest longwall face employing the use of shields having a spacing of +2 meters. The final spacing of the shields actually became 2.058m in order to match the standard pitch of the rack bar shearer haulage elements on the conveyor. In July 2002, the 2 m wide shields were successfully installed in LW-46 panel at RAG Cumberland mine in the U. S. The authors in this paper summarize the design considerations of and operational experiences with the world?s widest longwall face using +2 meter wide roof supports.

Jan 1, 2008

By D. Harrington

At the time of mine accidents one frequently hears the expression "there will be accidents as long as there are mines", or it may be varied to state that the accident in question was unavoidable, or something similar indicating inability to prevent accidents. However, it is the opinion of the writer, after over twenty-one years experience in both coal and metal mining, seven years being spent wholly in safety work, that by far the greater number of all accidents is due to carelessness or negligence. This carelessness or negligence may be on part of the victim of the accident or of one of his companions, or on part of his employer or possibly even of the inspector or safety man, and in some cases all of these agencies are involved. It manifests itself in various guises, one of the most serious being violation of state mining laws or regulations or of mine rules, and frequently the rules of ordinary common-sense. The cause very frequently is that trait in human nature to "take a chance" and it has been the writer's observation that the worst offender is the old-time miner who has come safely through many years experience, who was mining when the "safety man was a baby", and who clings to old-time ideas and practices and has "no use" for "newfangled" present-day "notions". Unquestionably, there are accidents, wholly unavoidable and many are caused by ignorance and by the new-comer in mining, yet as previously indicated, the writer's observation is that the old-timer is by far the worst offender, bringing grief to himself, companions and employer. Of the numerous manifestations of carelessness and negligence in connection with mine accidents, which have come to the notice of the writer, only one will be treated in this paper, viz: Violation of State Mining Law, and mention will be made only of explosions and major accidents in coal' mines with which the writer came in personal contact as investigator. In most cases, in addition to mine inspection after the accident, the writer heard the evidence given at Coroner's inquest and thus was enabled to for¬mulate fairly definite impressions as to events and conditions leading up to the occurrence.

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1929

By R. S. Morton

MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: To be invited to address the members of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute on a particular subject is an honor I sincerely appreciate. The subject of this paper is, ?The Advantages of Having Such Men as the Fireboss Under State, Rather Than Corporation Jurisdiction." On the fireboss, primarily, depends the safety of the mine. When all the rest of the mine workers are still comfortably sleeping in the wee small hours of the morning the fireboss steals noiselessly away, from his bed to take up his daily task, a tour of inspection. He enters the mine, he inspects alone they workings that will be filled with men whose safety is in his keeping. Loyal to his fellow men and responsibilities of his position; he seeks for danger in every place, on every road and travelingway; going over caves, through dangerous places where none of the others are expected or allowed to go alone. How many of us give a thought to these dangers and the faithful work that this guardian performs for our safety. After the fireboss has made this round of inspection, he reports all the dangerous places to the foreman and enters them in the book; he is supposed to have performed his duties; he has no authority to enforce his recommendations. He has found a number of rooms that have not been timebered as they should be for the safety of the digger; he has told the diggers to they timber, up better for their own safety; he has kicked to the foreman about these same places. These conditions. continue until there is an accident. The fireboss reports, broken crossbars or bad roof on a roadway or some other danger to the foreman, but the foreman does not have it fixed, making, excuses, as he cannot put any one on that work today; or that it will stand until some idle day, and that is the way things go until the fireboss gets so he wonders what good he really is, is it any wonder it is hard to get good men to take this position of fireboss? The remainder of the shift the fireboss is used as a general roust-about, having to do such, work as building stoppings, help the timberman or track layers, pull rails out of danger in pillars, a trapper is off and he is told to trap that day, when the mine is idle he is laid off to cut expenses. That is the way the fireboss is treated. The fireboss is not merely a merely a necessity to be lightly regarded but a factor whose authority should be unquestioned. The fireboss has made his district and knows just what conditions the workings are in, and sees lots of dangers that the foreman does not. In the morn-

Jan 1, 1921

PRESIDENT WHITESIDE: The chair will now throw the meeting open to discussion. GEO. B. PRYDE: In the old days at Rock Springs we had electric plants situated about half a mile from our mines; we had small boiler plants; we had an electric plant with about 600 kilowatt capacity. About ten years ago we discarded the old steam plants and started building towards a centralized power plant. We now have three 2,500-kilowatt turbine generators and one 1,000, and our peak load is about 7,000 kilowatts. We have had to rebuild the old power plant, scrap the old machines, and install water tube boilers. We did this as a matter of economy in a small local plant we had years ago, and it has grown to be a large central plant, supplying power for about 20,000 tons of coal daily, and distributing this power within a radius of twenty miles. We have found this method of power to be more economical than with the old plants, and the people who buy power from us in the Rock Springs field say it has been to their advantage also. We found this last year, when we had to shut down for five months, that that plant was the only plant operating in the Rock Springs field, supplying all the power, running of fans and pumping during the time the mines were shut down, and it helped the situation very much. We had an old wooden building which we had to tear down, raise the walls, and put on a steel roof; had to rebuild the boiler room and rebuild the boilers. The water situation at Rock Springs has never been very good; we get our water from wells 250 to 500 feet deep, and use one and one-quarter million gallons a week. We have two large spray ponds and we have gotten along well. There isn't any comparison between the central power station and the old method of making power. (Applause.) FRANK YOUNG: I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the paper just read, and it struck me it was remarkable how a paper prepared by anyone could be so nearly identical and coincide so very near with the experience of another. It is just like some work I have had. I had the engineering part to do for the power plant for ten years, and I think at that time we did all of the things that he mentioned in his paper. Also his analysis of the cost of power seems to me exactly right. If I had gathered the figures and made the statement myself I think it would have been very much the same as was read. The recommendation that it is better to buy

Jan 1, 1923

By C. E. Drennan

Your Chairman and the Program Committee have limited the time allotted to me, and so, with your permission, I will omit the preliminaries, and wade right into my subject. I believe I am safe in taking for granted that you are all agreed that electricity is the most feasible means of transmitting the power used in coal mining. If you are not, then the papers read before the Association in previous years have failed of their object. If you are so convinced, the only question is as to the choice between alternating and direct current, and the voltage. Fundamentally, this is primarily a matter of dollars and cents. With the sole exception of your trolley locomotives, there is no part of your equipment that cannot be operated as well on alternating as on direct current. With your pay rolls at their present high level and the efficiency of the labor you employ at the stage it now occupies, I believe you will agree, first, that everything possible must be done to increase the tons of coal produced per man employed; and, second, that ample power at all times must be available at every machine so that every one of your men can really get out a day's work without any avoidable delay. Speaking Electrically, all this means is a machine instead of a man wherever it is possible for a machine to do a man's work, and full voltage at the machine always, so that there can be no excuse for the work not being done promptly and efficiently-and dependably. The real reason for the selection of one kind of current or the other can best be understood by considering the formula which determines the size of wire required for transmitting electrical energy. The size of the copper required, and, consequently; its weight and cost, depends upon four factors: 1. The amount of energy or power to be transmitted. 2. The distance to be covered. 3. The percentage of loss allowed. 4. The voltage at the receiving end of the line. These factors enter into the problem to different extents, and, briefly, the size of wire depends directly upon the amount of power and the distance transmitted, and inversely upon the percentage of loss allowed and the square of the voltage. From this it will be seen that, with the amount of power and the distance fixed, if the loss is to be cut in two, the wire must be doubled with a given voltage, while if the loss remains constant and the voltage is doubled, the wire may be cut in four; that is, reduced 75 per cent in weight and cost. Now, standard motors are designed and recommended by their builders to run within a range of 10 per cent under voltage to 10 per cent above voltage - 440-volt motor, then, should preferably not be operated on less than 400 volts

Jan 1, 1923

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

By 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

By R. A. Marshall

Much has been written by men connected with the coal mining industry, and mining laws have been enacted for the safety of the men employed in the mines, and for the protection of property connected therewith. It seems almost impossible for anyone to select a subject that has not already been read, discussed and put into effect, especially in the coal mines of Western America. There is, however, a subject of much interest to the mining public, and to which I have given a great deal of study and consideration, and which I believe will be received by this convention, and will be given due consideration in the future in applying it to the safety of the mine,- "Efficiency in Shot Firing." Beginning with 1865, and for a period of 28 years in the state of Colorado, the annual reports of the chief inspectors show that 1159 coal miners were killed in the following manner: Five hundred eighty-two by falls of rock and coal ; 517 by gas and dust explosions; 6o by careless handling of explosives and the shooting of coal by the, individual, miner. It is my firm belief that 75 per cent of these fatal accidents might have been avoided, if a safe and proper shot firing system had been installed, at each and every mine. This may sound unreasonable, but I believe that the blasting of coal by the individual miner, and the use of black powder, squibs and fuse has, in reality, caused the death of many miners, from shock after blasting, the shooting out 'of timbers, and working in powder smoke, which fatal accidents were attributed to falls of rock or coal. These conditions led the people of Colorado, through their representatives of the General Assembly of Colorado, to enact a new coal mining law, and in 1913 this law became effective, containing twelve sections devoted to the subject of Efficiency in the System of Shot Firing. During the period 1913 to 1920, the employment of a shot firer, the use of permissible. powder, and the electric hand battery has resulted in safer mines, safer miners and safer shot firers, and I believe every coal mine in the state should employ first-class, certified shot firers, use permissible powder and fire the shots with an electric hand battery. I believe where gas generates in dangerous quantities, which is generally determined by inspection of the mine, and the daily report, the shooting in. such a mine should be done by electric battery located outside of the mine. Where permissible powder is used, I have seen the shot firer start down the mine with a belt around his waist containing one hundred caps, a safety lamp to test for gas, and an open light to ignite the fuse. Would it not be much safer for the shot firer if he used the electric hand battery? In non-gaseous mines where black powder is used, I have. seen the miners carry fuse into the mine, and shot firers have been known to partly tamp the holes, which was

Jan 1, 1921