Search Documents

BHP-Utah International, Inc. Coal Magazine Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coal Company Harnischfeger Corporation Hemscheidt Corporation Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corporation McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company The North American Coal Corporation Peabody Coal Company Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Southern Pacific Lines Tamarron Resort Utah Power & Light Company Utility Fuel

Jan 1, 1991

By V. O. Murray

Safety, from the Latin word "Salvus" -Safe. 1. The condition or state of being safe; freedom from danger or hazard, exemption from hurt, injury, or loss. 2. Freedom from whatever exposes one to danger or from liability to cause, danger, or harm; safeness: hence, the quality of making safe or secure, or of giving confidence, justifying trust, insuring against harm or loss. (From Webster.) The meaning of the word "Safety" by Webster is very explicit, clear, and plain. It is not obscure or imperceptible. What man, woman or child is not familiar with this word? A mere word by itself, but indifference to its significance means the difference between life, death, permanent or partial disability, or injury. There is no question about a safety program being expensive. It is-it produces no commodity-but when properly organized and with a definite goal in view it will pay 'a dividend by increasing the efficiency of the human worker.

Jan 1, 1930

By Chris Curfman

Sustaining Business in a Rapidly Changing Environment Topics: ?Sustainability @ Caterpillar ?Workforce Management ?Regulatory Environment & the Reality of living in a Carbon Constrained World

Jan 1, 2008

The 67th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the C'est Bon Hotel, Park City, Utah, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Company, Carbondale, Colorado. Mr. Reeves introduced President Max A. Robb and read a brief biography as follows: A Westerner by birth, he has chosen to pursue his mining career with United States Fuel Company, a subsidiary of United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company. United States Fuel Company is the largest underground producer of commercial and utility coal in the Intermountain West. Max attended Utah schools and has kept his education current through correspondence courses in mining technology and business education, and through attendance at various university-sponsored development seminars.

Jan 1, 1971

[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

By Bill Gray

Jan 1, 2008

[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

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of Twenty-first Meeting 9 The U. S. Fuel Company's Tipple at the Hiawatha Mine John M. Jennings 11 Some Experiences With Mechanical Loading in Central Pennsylvania¬ O. G. Sharrer 13 Mechanical Loading Underground- A. W. Dickinson 25 Operation by Long-Face Conveyor Method at Sweetwater Mine Glen A. Knox 39 Discussion of Mechanical Loading 44 Discussion-Safety in Mechanical Loading 45 New Steel Tipple, Spring Canyon, Utah- G. A. Murphy 46 A Theory on the Cause of Spontaneous Combustion-C. P. Crawford... 48 Rock Dusting in the West-D. Harrington 50 Mudite-L. C. Clare 57 Discussion of Harrington's and Clare's Papers 59 Material for Rock Dust-Prepared Discussion-Edward K. Judd 60 Tipple and Mine of the Columbia Steel Corporation-T. C. Harvey 63 Mechanical Stoking of Domestic Fuel-Joseph Harrington 67 The Garrison Automatic Domestic Stoker-Lloyd Garrison 70 Discussion of Domestic Stokers 71]

Jan 1, 1925

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 3300 One Oliver Plaza, Pittsburgh, Pa. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club, Bldg., Denver, Colorado Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 S. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Amerman, Richard W Utah Cons. & Mining Co., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mexico Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., 848 N 3rd E, Price, Utah Anderson, John S. Utah Cons. & Mining Co., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1971

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 154 ACZ 149 AmerCable,Inc 144 Andalex Resources, Inc 118 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 101 Canyon Fuel Company 145 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 95 Continental Conveyor 148 Cove Shoes 136-137 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 121 Crested Butte Mountain Resort 134 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 115 Dakota Coal Company DriltechInc 135 Empire Machinery Company 94 Energy West Mining Company 122 Fluor Daniel 100 GH Hensley Industries 126. 127 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp 123 Holme, Roberts & Owen 98 Honnen Equipment Company 150 Ingersoll-Rand Company 141 Jennmar Corporation 142 Joy Mining Machinery - A Harnischfeger Industries Company 104 K & P Sales Engineers, Inc 114 Kennecott Energy Company 155 Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation 96 LeTourneau,Inc 160 Long-Airdox Company 112 Magnum Metals, Inc 133 McLanahan Corporation 129 Mine Technik America 124 Mineral Tech 151 Morrison Knudsen Corporation 97 The North American Coal Corporation 130 Northwestern Resources Company 125 P&H MinePro Services 157 Peabody Western Coal Co 131 Phillips Machine Service, Inc Pincock Allen & Holt 120 Powder River Coal Company 107 Pyro-Chem 156 RamseyTechnology, Inc 119 Rust Tractor Company 90 Salt River Project 91 Savage Industries Inc 89 Schroeder Industries 147 Sheraton Steamboat Resort and Conference Center 111 Skelly & Loy 138 Snowmass Village at Aspen 146 Stamler Corporation (An Oldenburg Group Company) 117 Tamarron Hilton Resort 140 TerraMatrix Inc 139 TIC (The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc.) 99 Trapper Mining Inc 106 Wagner Equipment Company 116 Weir International Mining Consultants 113 Westech 152 Wheeler Machinery Company 128]

Jan 1, 1997

PRESIDENT MOSES: Mr. Hall, can you tell us something that will help our cause? R. DAWSON HALL: I did not want to tell anything; I wanted rather to say something, if. I said anything at all, about my impressions regarding the safety of the mines in the West. We heard yesterday how terribly dangerous they were, and I think that is due to the natural conditions. It is interesting to note that many of the developments of safety, which you will find all through the country, had their origin here in the Rocky Mountain States. It has not been because the Rocky Mountain States have been negligent - though, of course, they could have been more active - but it is becaues the conditions have been such as to make accidents more numerous. Rock dusting by mechanical means was used here before any other country adopted it, let alone the United States. It is true that rock dusting was started in England; but it was by hand, as it remained with the Victor -American Fuel Company to be the first to distribute rock dust by machines, and that is to the credit of Mr. Murray, who was the man that did the original dusting in those mines. It was at Delagua, they put up shelving and put dust on it; they used the adobe, and Mr. Pryde, at Reliance, very early in the game, put dust in the Reliance Mines, and some of the dust, I believe, is there yet but they can hardly find it for the new dust. That is not all. I believe it was first in the Utah Fuel Company's mine that incombustible clay was used for stemming, and in the East, where we were in the habit of using slack entirely, that was a big advantage. Another thing that the West has originated has been the wetting of the chain in cutting. The people in Alabama took a great deal of credit for having used that very early, but not as early as Mr. Brennan did at the Hanna Mine, he having used water on the cutter bits in 1913. Another development was that the Phelps Dodge Corporation were the first people to use, I believe in the United States, storage battery locomotives for main haulage, and while they didn't go ahead with that, so far as putting in power trucks and mining machines, until just recently-I think the Consolidation Coal Company in the East managed to get ahead of them in that development,-notwith-standing, they were the earliest to use it for main haulage. When I came through this section of the country, in 1912, I think it was, I went through the mines of the Union Pacific Coal Company. I was surprised to see the extent to which fire-proofing had been carried out in that mine, with regard to non-combustible brattices and overcasts, which were of concrete; even the boxes were covered with sheet metal. They were very far ahad of us in that respect; far, far ahead of us in the East, because the East has its favorable conditions in the fact that most of the lump in the mines is more or less wet all the time. Another safety provision which has been taken by the Utah Fuel Company, was shooting from the surface. That has not spread very much in the, East, but it has been used in Oklahoma and the middle West. I think there is plenty of evidence that the Western people have been thinking for themselves, in going ahead and' establishing new standards in Safety. One of the most unusual things is this Safety Committee, permanent Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, which has been endeavoring here to find out the conditions under which safety cant best be practiced. I think it is those who venture to. criticize the West that) have to show that in the East there is not the spirit which has led the Rocky Mountain region to endeavor to reduce its very terrible death rate that really exists. It has to be faced and it furnishes a cause, an incentive; for further work toward safety; but none can deny that the desire of the western mining man has been to find

Jan 1, 1926

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of. Twentieth Meeting 9 "Cutter Bits"-J. H. Emrick 12 Discussion 16 Experiments in Roof Control-D. A. Stout 18 Discussion 28 Use of Permissible Powder in Coal Mining-H. Petersen 35 Discussion 38 Safety Measures-F. C. Miller 40 Automatic Mine Fan Signal-O. C.. Irwin 45 Discussion 46 The Operation of Gaseous Mines-Samuel Tescber 51 Discussion 55 "The Alamo Mine"-E. H. McCleary 60 Discussion 69 Mudite Discussion 71 The Mudite Machine-Ogden Iron Works Co 73 Reducing the Labor Turn-Over-Eugene McAuliffe 79 Coal vs. Oil Competition-Franklin P. Wood and Eugene Weber 81 Miscellaneous Discussion 86 New General Coal Mine Safety Orders of the State of Utah-B. W. Dyer 90 Discussion 93 Wednesday Afternoon Session 103 Comment on Utah Mining Law-Wm.Monay 104]

Jan 1, 1925

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Harold Levent., Manager Coal Activities, Cameron Engineers, Denver, Colorado. The first speaker was Dr. Joseph J. Yancik, Assistant Director-Mining, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington. D.C. Subject-"Coal Mining R&D Programs of the Bureau of Mines." (See index for printed text of Dr. Yancik's paper.) Joseph J. Yancik is Assistant Director - Mining for the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for the Bureau's research programs in mining. Principal programs are the coal and metal mining health and safety research, mining extraction and excavation, tunnelling, explosives, mined land reclamation, mine fires and mine waste disposal. He administers these programs through four research centers and through outside contracts and grants.

Jan 1, 1974

Thomas J. Parmley C. N. Sweet T. C. Jenkins W. S. Iliff, Sr. Warren Bracewell L. C. White Fading away like the stars of the morning, Losing their light in the glorious sun; Thus would we pass from earth and its toiling, Only remembered by what we have done.

Jan 1, 1947

The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Mr. John Peperakis, President Dear Mr. Peperokis: Following is the report of the Treasurer from May 19, 1956 to May 3 1, 1957: RECEIPTS [Cash on hand May 19, 1956. ................................... $2,209.64 Dues ........................................ $ 810.00 Registrations, Banquet, Tickets, etc. 1,992.75 Contributions ................... ............ 1,490.00 Interest .................................... 27.60 4,320.35 $6,529.99]

Jan 1, 1957

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

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

CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: We have with us this afternoon, Mr. D. W. Rockey, of the Industrial Educational Organization, who would like to occupy a few minutes of our time. There is still an hour left, and there is a lot more talking to be done, and when the time is up you can go. D. W. ROC'KEY (U. S. Vocational Training Bureau, N. M.) : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I am sorry to say I am not more closely connected with the coal mining game. I am interested in it because I am interested in a great deal of educational work being done in New Mexico. Two years ago, this Institute appointed an Educational Committee to investigate the opportunity for education in coal mining, and you have the report of that committee; it was issued in May 1924. Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Moorhead of the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Mr. Dickinson, and Mr. Miller, I think, of the C. F. C I., and Mr. Pryde, were members of that committee. They investigated the work being done in Safety, Training, First- Aid, and other topics, and made a general survey of the educational problems that might be said to be of benefit to the coal operators and to the coal miners. I believe, if I understood Mr. Moorhead correctly, while this report was accepted the committee was not discharged; but everyone seemed to be a little in doubt as to whether this activity should continue. My plea here directly is, of course, to ask that they be made a permanent committee, and asked to report to you at the next meeting in February on what has been accomplished in carrying out the program that was advised by the various companies, and what success, from a standpoint of improved work and financial return to the company, has been had. I believe that the whole trend of your discussion here has shown the need or the opportunity for improved production through education. For instance your mechanical loader the need of men who are experienced along mechanical lines, rather than the old pick and shovel methods, and the need of better understanding of your problems, just as in your safety lamp discussion that came up in the report of your Safety Committee. We have also developed a new phase, a new may of getting at some of your problems at Dawson this year, that has not been covered previously. I want to ask Mr. Holman here to tell you what is being done as a starter. Remember, we have not worked this out. He will tell yon how we are making a preliminary start in training inexperienced miners with the idea of cutting the accident record and keeping the production of inexperienced men at a higher level. If you are interested in that, I would like to suggest that this committee be requested to investigate some of these things very carefully. The State of New Mexico was willing to put five hundred or a thousand dollars into this training program as an experiment. We are willing that the Institute should have the credit for it, but we want it carefully surveyed so at your next meeting or some subsequent meeting, they can say this has been a feasible project and worthy of consideration. Mr. Holman, will yon tell us a little about this? (Applause.) MR. HOLMAN: We had an idea that by putting a green man in the mine with an experienced miner, the green man would probably learn something, and not get into trouble, etc. We decided to take a certain portion of one of our best mines, cross entry room work, and establish an underground school. We picked one of the assistant foremen who was well trained in our particular mining methods, and any green man who was employed was put into this school. He was paid a salary and he trained each and every man. Each man or two men world be working in a room and we paid them the regular contract price; they were trained how to shovel coal, pick waste and various other things. Some would stay in there a month and be transferred to other portions of the mine or other

Jan 1, 1926

At the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, G. S. Rice, Chief Mining Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, announced the definition of a gassy mine. This definition has been awaited with much interest, especially by the Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. It applies to the whole area of all mines, any part of which is on the public domain of the United States. Consequently it will be of wide application in the western part of this country. The safety committee of the R. M. C. M. I. has been hopeful that the Institute would adopt this definition without exception as the codes of rules to be recommended at all mines in the Rocky Mountain area. The statement follows: "The U. S. Bureau of Mines believes that all coal mines are potentially gassy; but for purposes of administration in respect to prevention of explosions and fires, the Bureau recommends the following classification: "Class 1 coal mine-A practically non-gassy mine in which flammable gas in excess of 0.05 per cent cannot be found by systematic search. "Class 2. coal mine-A slightly gassy mine in which (a) flammable gas has been found, ? but in quantity less than two per cent in still air in any active or unsealed-abandoned workings; or (b) flammable gas can be found, but in quantity less than four per cent, in some place from which the ventilating current has been shut off for a period of one hour; or (c) flammable gas can be found,* but in quantity less than one-fourth per cent in a split** of the ventilating current; or (d) flamamble gas is found in quantity greater than' specified rate*** of not more than 25 cu. ft. per minute. "Class 3 coal mine- A gassy mine in which flammable gas is found in quantity greater than specified for a Class 22 coal mine. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING DECISION NO. 3 "(A) Flammable gas found in coal mines is, with rare exceptions, methane. In coal-mining fields where natural gas is found in lower geologic horizons by deep wells which pass through or nearby the coal mines, there have been rare instances of la leakage from the well. Natural gas is chiefly methane; that constituent almost always forms more than 85 per cent of the whole, but it usually contains ethane, propane and traces of butane also. Therefore if the latter gases are found in mine air it is an indication of leakage. The lower limit of explosibility of methane-air mixture when there is turbulence of five per cent and of natural-gas-air mixtures with about ten per cent ethane and associated hydro-carbon gases is 4.6 per cent. The limit therefore varies with the character of the mixture. " (B) To determine the proper classification of a coal mine, it is advisable that systematic testing and sampling be done at least three times in a period of not less than 72 hours. All tests and samples of the mine air, except one, must show an inflammable-gas content less than the maximum limit of the class to which the mine is assigned. In other words, a tolerance of one test or analysis may be permitted to provide for a mistake or a very exceptional occurrence. "(C) When a new mine is being opened in a coal field where existing mines are generally gassy, it is common sense to assume that similar conditions will be found in the new mine, and its development and equipment should be based upon the expectation that it will be assigned to Class 3."

Jan 1, 1926

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

Jan 1, 1983