Search Documents

By F. A. Young

A description of the dry process coal cleaning plant which has been built and operated by St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Company at their mine at Brilliant, New Mexico, should at first be a description of the special machinery which is used in this process. This equipment consists primarily of screens for sizing the coal into six different sizes all smaller than 1 ½ inch and the pneumatic machines for cleaning each size. These machines are patented and were manufactured by Sutton, Steele & Steele of Dallas, Texas, until a few months ago when all rights of sale were acquired by the American Coal Cleaning Corporation. These screens, a plan of which is now before you, are called anti-gravity screens because the coal travels up hill. The screens which we have at Brilliant are 3 feet wide and 7 feet 4 inches long. They consist of one upper deck which slopes upward in the direction of the flow of the coal, at an angle of 12 degrees. This deck is a wire mesh screen the size of which determines the size of oversize from that screen. Under this is a lower deck with a slope of 7 degrees. This is a solid bottom and is for advancing the undersize to the next screen. On account of the difference in pitch of these decks they are about 11 inches apart at the discharge end, which allows the oversize to be taken off at one or both sides and the undersize to fall only a few inches on to the following screen. This is perhaps the most valuable point in this patent as it allows any number of screens to be placed on a-level floor, tandem in a battery without elevating or rehandling the coal in any way. The length of the screens corresponds to the proper spacing of the cleaning tables which naturally operate on the floor below. I know of no other screen which can be operated in this way. The coal is caused to travel by a reciprocating motion. A shaft as shown near the center of the screen box and under it has an eccentric at each side of the screen with connecting rods attached near the rear of the screen box. The screen box is attached to the stationary under frame by means of cast iron plates extending full width across the screen box. These are placed at an angle as shown so that the forward motion of the eccentrics causes the screen box to rise as it moves forward and the backward motion drops the screen from under the coal thereby causing it to advance. The coal advancing over the screen cloth in this rolling or jumping motion causes very perfect sizing. It should be stated here that very accurate sizing is necessary for the success of the cleaning tables. The stroke is 1 inch and the speed 350 revolutions per minute. In describing the pneumatic cleaning table, I place before you a plan furnished by the makers. The basic principle is that if a film of coal one to two inches thick and all of nearly the same size pieces is placed on a flat perforated surface and a large volume of air passed through it, the lighter particles which are the clean coal will soon find their way to the top of the film, while the heavier particles, or waste, will remain on the bottom. The machine is built with a perforated deck about 4 feet square under which is an air chamber and air duct connecting with a fan which is part of the machine. The deck of the table has a reciprocating motion the same as the screens already described, which tends to advance the product up a slight slope which is adjustable. The coal is fed at one corner of the table as shown and the deck slopes also away from the feed and at right angles to the reciprocating motion. On top of the perforated deck are riffles about 2 inches apart and running parallel to the line of reciprocating motion. These riffles are about 1/2 inch high at the fan and feed side of the table and taper to nothing at the far side. When the coal is fed on to the table, the air through the perforations tends to raise it 'and roll it over these riffles down the slope toward the clean coal discharge. The heavier particles do not get over the riffles so rapidly and the reciprocating motion is constantly pushing them

Jan 1, 1923

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 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 S. W. Farnham

We have listened to many papers describing mechanical loaders, and systems of mining planned to increase their efficiency. We have become familiar with the various types and in a general way, their capacities and limitations. Messrs. F. E. Cash and E. H. Johnson in Bulletin 17 of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, subject Coal Mining Investigations, have a very complete review of the loading situation then. Mr. A. W. Dickinson, in a recent paper before this Institute, gave a later illustrated review of mechanical loaders. On page 28 of Cash & Johnson's paper is a list of loading machines to which might be added to bring the list down to date, the following: Under Digging and Loading Machines The Goodman Power Shovel Under Scraper Loaders The Goodman 436-G-3 125 H. P. three drum Scraper loader The Goodman 35 H. P. Entry loader and the Two Drum 125 H. P. Hoist built by Vulcan of Denver for scrapers Under Shaking Trough Conveyors The Eickhoff Conveyor The Link-Belt Conveyor The McCarty Duck-bill which is really a digging and loading element built to attach to the end of and operated by a reciprocating conveyor. The outstanding feature in this line of work in the past few years is the fact that a few very successful operations have been worked out on a large scale; the officers and staff in charge of this work have gone into details very thoroughly and altered and improved, in many cases, their mine equipment and mining methods, and by the exercise of persistent energy and intelligent effort, in the face of frequent difficulties and discouragements, they have attained results that are far ahead of the average loader operation. The coal mining industry owes much to these men for the pioneering and development of mechanical loading; their investigations in transport, shooting, shearing, snubbing, cleaning, and production costs, the results of which they have given freely and frequently to the public, are of great value. Foremost among the pioneers in this work are the Union Pacific Coal properties, the Quealy properties, the Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company and in the Central West, the Union Colliery Company of Illinois. On the other hand, in the great majority of installations, one loader, or possibly two or three loaders have been started in a given operation and through failure to make the proper effort to improve their transportation and work out the systems to utilize their loading machines, the loaders have not shown appreciable savings and in many cases, the installation has failed. It has been frequently stated in many meetings where loading has been discussed, that the idea of mechanical loading must first be sold not only to the operating staff but to the entire personnel of any company where installations are made. The problems involved in the successful application of this equipment are such that it requires enthusiastic and wholehearted teamwork on the part of everyone connected with the work and when difficulties arise, they must be ready to exercise initiative and try new ways oftentimes of overcoming impediments. The closest attention now is given to the question of economics how much will a loader reduce the cost of coal in any particular situation? Without fear of successful contradiction, I believe that experience up to date has unquestionably shown that where the shovel type of loader can be properly used, it produces in wide work, the cheapest coal of any loading device yet brought onto the market. Naturally there is a considerable difference between the results from different makes of shovels.

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1923

By Sam Andrews

Mr. President, Officers and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: This is my first attempt to prepare and read a paper before your association. The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I understand, was formed for the purpose of increasing knowledge relating to coal mining in all its various branches by study, research and discussion. In writing my paper, I have tried to be as practical as I can, at the same time, present my arguments so that they can be easily understood. When I use the word science, I mean organized common sense. I humbly ask my hearers to be a little patient, while I read my paper, and be "to its faults a little blind, and to its virtues a trifle kind". Western Europe is said to be the cradle of the coal mining industry. We are told that the Ancient Britons were acquainted with the use of coal long before the Romans invaded and conquered their country. The Romans were never too proud to learn from the outer barbarians, and possibly acquired the precious secret from them: We are told that it was not until the 13th century, that the coal mining industry, assumed any noticeable importance in Britain, and on the Continent. In the year 1259 Henry the 3rd granted a charter to the freemen of New Castle on Tyne, allowing them to mine coal. For a long time it was used in the arts and manufactures only, wood continuing to be the common domestic fuel. As has been the case with almost every great benefit, the introduction of coal as a fuel was stoutly resisted at first, and we find its use prohibited in the city of London in the reign of Edward II, by Royal proclamation ; which was soon discovered to be injurious and foolish, and consequently withdrawn. It is interesting perhaps, to know how this Royal proclamation was brought about. A lady of the Royal household was riding in her coach one day through a village in which coal was burned as a fuel, and she suffered such a cough by inhaling the coal smoke that she decided to call a council of suffragetts, who ultimately decided that the burning of coal was injurious to their health and complexion. They drafted out a petition and presented it to the king, who speedily issued the order that no coal was to be burned in the city of London. The penalty for disobeying this order was death by hanging. We are informed of one poor man who continued to burn a lump of' coal on his fire in winter time; he was arrested, sent to prison and condemned to death; the judge in passing the sentence solemnly stating that if he was not allowed to get a fire that was hot enough in this world, he felt that he surely would be allowed one in the next.

Jan 1, 1921

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

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 43 Denver Tech Center, Englewood, Colo. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., Box 2331, Denver, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Aggen, Marshall J Marathon LeTourneau Co., Rt. 4, Box 1188, Henderson, Texas Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club Bldg., Denver, Colo. Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 So. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Alford, Eugene C Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., 2025 TenMain Center, Kansas City, Missouri Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliance Co., 5708 East 7th St., Tucson, Arizona Alston, George Mine Safety Appliances Co., 400 Penn Center Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pa. Amerman, Richard W Utah International, Inc., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mex. Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., Drawer M, Price, Utah Anderson, John S Utah International, Inc., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1973

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Past President, R. R. Williams, Jr., Manager of Mines, The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, who introduced the President, W. K. Dennison, Jr., Superintendent, Raton Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Raton, New Mexico. His speech of welcome to the Institute follows: The President's Remarks Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you to the 56th regular meeting of the Institute. A look at the program will show that the various chairmen and their committees, headed by General Chairman A. Z. Dimitroff, have been hard at work to prepare a program which I am sure you will find to be informative as well as entertaining. I think that a special vote of thanks and appreciation is due Glenn Sorensen, who stepped in to head the Program Committee when Clint Cornelius moved from this area.

Jan 1, 1960

By O .. G. Sharrer

Loading mechanically has of late become the most widely discussed subject in connection with coal mining and has even equalled. the discussion of safety measures as a topic of interest. The subject has been discussed in the various mining journals and by well. informed persons at the Mining Institutes, so it would appear; that all has been said that can be said until further experiments bring out new lines of discussion. It is, therefore, not the intention to present this article as a technical discussion of the subject of mechanical loading as a whole, but rather as a plain talk on machines with which the writer has had personal contact. In 1919, during the first period of post-war depression, a Pennsylvania coal company employing union labor became interested in the possibilities of mechanical loading with the hope of reducing their mining costs, which were and are yet too high to meet competition from the non-union fields of Somerset and Westmoreland counties. Of several loaders presented for their consideration the model of the Joy loader shown by Mr. Joseph F. Joy, seemed to hold the greatest possibilities, and after extended study, the management decided to invest in a machine of this type. A machine was built, which as far as the writer knows was the only one of its type ever put on the market. This machine arrived at one of the mines early in 1920 and was put to work immediately. It was a forerunner of the present 4-BU and 5-BU types, but differed from them very radically as to design. In general the machine consisted of the familiar Joy gathering arms and a short conveyor which discharged into a steel tank which held about four and one-half tons of coal. This tank was emptied by a second conveyor which placed the coal in the mine car. The object of this conveyor tank was to provide storage room while changing cars and to allow the machine to load on the entry while the room was short. This plan was very efficient and from our experience was worth retaining, but has been abandoned by the Joy Company on account of its making the machine unwieldy. The whole machine was mounted on caterpillar tractors which were driven by two 10-H.P. Westinghouse series wound motors, each having its own controller, the controllers being arranged in tandem so as to be operated by the same handle. This very ingenious scheme which is shown in Figure 4, was supposed to make it possible to steer the loader by the controllers. By swinging the handle one way both motors moved forward, by swinging the handle the other way both motors moved backwards and by twisting the handle as shown by arrows, one motor moved ahead and the other back, thus causing the machine to turn. This scheme proved a failure as the loader was too temperamental and erratic in its operation. After Mr. Joy, himself, narrowly escaped serious injury, this device was taken off and the controllers manipulated separately. This system never proved satisfactory and was abandoned' for

Jan 1, 1925

MR. SHUBART: Mr. Miller's paper mentioned the two processes that seemed to be a success, the Smith process and the Piron process. I suppose the main difference is this, that Smith's process is to furnish domestic fuel and the by-products while the Piron process that Ford is installing is for fuel for power plants. I would like to ask Mr. Miller something about the commercial cost of the process. With the briquette you must make it cheap enough to sell. What are the commercial possibilities of Smith's briquette? MR. MILLER: It is pretty hard to say what the cost would be at this time, owing to the fact that slack has advanced double, or even more at the time I was in New York with the plant, but at that time it was costing $1.10 for the operation. You can add to that, of course, the cost of the coke. One dollar and ten cents was the entire cost of plant operation. It takes about one and one-half tons of coal to make a ton of briquettes. One dollar and ten cents takes care of all the material, cost, labor, handling, etc. Labor was much cheaper then. I would say it would cost about $2.20 now. The cost of coal is what you can buy it for on the market. I don't think, however, that the carbocoal process will ever meet with any great favor for the simple reason that it is really a prepared fancy fuel. It is going to be nice for people in offices where they want a grate or for families where they want a nice clean fuel. It leaves no stain on the fingers, no odor to it. It seems in carbonizing coal we change the carbon molecule. For instance, we are all familiar with the diamond. It is carbon, yet it requires a tremendous heat to burn a common little diamond. But you can set a piece of charcoal afire, which is also carbon, with a match. The molecular form has been changed in carbonizing coal, i. e., it is larger. Carbocoal will fire very readily, it can be started with a piece' of paper. I think the Piron process will be the process, i. e., to simply take out the tars and light oils, then fire direct-have the distillate plants right on the job. CHAIR: Can Mr. Shubart tell us something of the mechanical part of the Piron process? MR. SHUBART: The Piron process is of interest because Mr. Ford is taking it up. He has made so few mechanical mistakes it makes us feel that it is a success. Piron is a chemist of high accomplishment and reputation. The thing about the proces is its simplicity. Mr. Smith's is a very elaborate process, but Piron has gotten around all that. Piron feeds the raw coal in at about one-half inch mesh or smaller. He feeds it into a retort about 55 feet long, 16 feet wide over all. He has a hearth about 6 feet wide and the length of the retort. The base of the hearth that carries the coal is a conveyor, a flat cast iron conveyor, a very massive affair, very accurately made, so that there is no loss of coal. Between the upper and lower strands of the ' conveyor is a bath of molten lead which gives an accurate control of temperature. For best results he must have temperature of not under 800 F., not over 1,300 degrees F., about 1,100 or 1,200 F. seems to be ideal for getting greatest yield of oils and the best tars and other by-products. This lead bath has a system of flues running through it that

Jan 1, 1923

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

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Past President R. M. von Storch, who introduced the President, R. R. Williams, Jr., Manager of Mines, The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado. His speech of welcome is as follows: "Members and guests of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It is my distinct privilege to welcome you to the fifty-fifth regular meeting of the Institute. We have again gathered to meet our treasured friends, to make new acquaintances, to hear important papers by outstanding authorities, and to generally enjoy ourselves in the setting of the beautiful city of Colorado Springs. It is the prerogative of your President to appear as optimistic as he desires in the opening remarks to this Institute. I must admit that I have had to cast aside some bare and significant facts to the contrary. However, there must be a great deal of optimism present in an industry that can survive the adversities that have confronted. the coal industry within recent years.

Jan 1, 1959

The 70th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Steamboat Village Inn, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The session was called to order by Past President O. F. Lewis. Consultant, Colowyo Coal Co., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Lewis introduced President A. F. Geiger, Manager, Navajo Mine, Utah International, Inc., Fruitland, New Mexico. Following are Mr. Lewis' remarks: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the institute, guests and friends, welcome to Steamboat Springs and the 70th meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From all appearances this is our largest meeting and should be the most successful. When I last spoke to you I was President of Colowyo Coal Company and the Rocky Mountain Coal Institute but that has changed. Colowyo Coal Company was acquired last Dec. by W. R. Grace & Co. and operates as Colowyo Coal Company, Division of W. R. Grace & Co. I am confident these people will make a worthwhile contribution to the coal Industry.

Jan 1, 1974

The following pages contain valuable information about the products and services offered by our advertisers

Jan 1, 1982

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

By Thomas Foster

One of the most dreaded things which mining men sometimes have to contend with is underground mine fires, which are both dangerous and expensive. In the Reliance mines we have had considerable trouble with mine fires. We have at the present time five different fire zones, three of these zones give us considerable trouble and the other two have not given any trouble since they have been walled off. Fire Zone No. 1 comprises No. 2, 3 and 4 South Entries, about 50 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 2 comprises the main drift entry from the mouth to the Old Boundary Plane and extends to the crop line, about 10 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 3 comprises 1 and 2 North Entries from the main slope to the Old Boundary Plane, a distance of about 1,200 feet, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 4 comprises 11/2 and 2 North Entries, a distance of 1,100 feet between New Slope and Old Boundary Plane, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 5 comprises the inside end of No. 11/2 and 2 North Entries and 3 North Entry from the New Slope to 30 room, a distance of about 2,600 feet along No. 3 North Entry, about 20 acres are enclosed in this zone. The first mine fire started in No. 2 South Entry in No. 1 zone in 1914. Inside of No. 7 room on the high side of the entry, there was a soft piece of coal. There were no rooms driven in this coal and one day a fire was discovered in the solid pillar on the high side of the entry, work was started at once to load out this fire. and several places was driven into the pillar and cribs built where the coal was taken out, but this method proved a failure and a sand pack was put up along the entry between the track and the high rib. This consisted of timber set about 3 feet from the rib and 2-inch boards put behind the timber and sand or adobe put in between the boards and the ribs, and this method gave very good results except that it required close watching as the sand would settle and let the smoke out between the roof and the sand. Fire broke out in No. 3 South Entry in No. 1 zone in the summer of 1919. We sealed this fire off by building 36 fire stoppings, which also enclosed the fire in No. 2 South Entry and we have never had any trouble with fires in this zone since it was walled off. The fire started in No. 2 -zone in 1919 and has been very active ever since. When this fire was first discovered we built new stoppings in front of the old one in the room necks; we also opened up some of the room necks and loaded out part of the burning coal and rock but this did not help any, the fire, would burn out around the stoppings also burn along the roof between the top coal and the roof sometimes nearly across the entry. Several holes were drilled from the surface to the fire area and flushing the fire was tried but this was also a:\, failure, the rock above the coal was so hot that the mud would dry in the hole and fill it. In 1921 we started to take down the top coal along this entry, timber the entry and put 2-inch boards behind the timber and fill in between the coal and the boards with sand or adobe. We have at present over 1,000 feet of this work done and it has given us better results than any other method that we have tried. As the coal burns out behind the timber the weight breaks the timber and it is necessary to renew some of it. Fire broke out in No. 1 North Entry in No. 3 zone in 1922. There was a stopping in this entry that had been put in when the entry was finished some few years before. The fire burned around the stopping on the low rib of the entry, we built another stopping in front of the old one taking down the top coal and extending it up to the roof also digging in both ribs and setting the stoppings into the coal about 18 inches. This fire did not cause any trouble until June, 1924, when we discovered this fire was very active on the inside

Jan 1, 1924

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

The 76th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 9:30 a.m. A film-"Once Upon a Time" showing the stifling effect of unnecessary government regulations and the importance of protecting economic political freedoms was shown. Past President, Robert E. Murray, President, Western Division and Subsidiary Companies, The North American Coal Corporation, called the meeting to order. He introduced President Loren V. Linville, District Sales Manager, Industrial Products Division, Uniroyal, Inc. A biographical sketch follows: Loren V. Linville was born on December 29, 1925 on the family farm near Wiley, Colorado to Scott W. and Hazel Linville. He has one sister, a teacher in the public schools and a brother who is an optometrist in Gustine, California. Loren grew up in Lamar, Colo. graduating from Lamar High School in 1944 and spent the folllowing 2 years as a radioman in the US Navy. He graduated from Denver University in 1950 with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. On September 12, 1948 he married Norma. They have 3 children, Linelle, a teacher in New Mexico, Bruce an electronic technician in Colorado Springs and Kevin at home.

Jan 1, 1980

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