Search Documents

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 Stuart A. Sanderson

Founded in 1876 - oldest continuously operating mining association in the United States 700 Members representing mineral resource industry in Colorado and the west Spokesman for the industry before the legislature, agencies, Congress, and the courts

Jan 1, 2010

By C. H. Trik

Any article or discussion on the ventilation of Working Faces under different systems of concentrated mining is of little value to any practical man unless based upon facts gleaned from actual experience, and empirical data on this subject is, to say the least mighty scarce. Of this one thing, however, you can rest assured, the old cry of "no air at the working faces" will have become a thing of the past. No longer will we hear of some operator who has been too eager to get out the coal and who has lost sight of everything else in his mad dash for production, digging himself shut until his airways are mere pin- points and his air current a feeble thing, too weak to combat the high resistance of his restricted mine. A mine operating under one or more of the various systems of concentrated mining should always have plenty of air, for in concentrated mining the tendency is toward greatly reduced mine resistances due to increased sectional areas. It can readily be seen that the tendency is to large, wide areas across the panel and where this is true large volumes and low gauges are the rule, unless inordinate restriction is encountered in the permanent airways, and no operator, far sighted or progressive enough to adopt this system of mining when his conditions permit, would ever allow his main airways both intake and return, to be anything but model courses. As a matter of .fact, we are likely to encounter the opposite of what is usually the case in most mines to day. We are apt to find the air at the working faces sluggish due to the large areas of passage rather than to high resistance. This is combated in. various ways which will be discussed further along in this article. Those companies, of which we have knowledge in this country who, to- day are using any of the new systems of mining, seem to proceed alike in the general method of developing their acreage. Let us assume, for this discussion, the Utah Colorado Coal Corporation is going to open a mine under the new system and their conditions are such as to permit their adopting the simple block system, each face served by a separate machine, each entry having its conveyor to the cars. After the permanent haulage and airways are driven "narrow work" starts to shape the blocks. We are not interested in the length of these "conveyor headings" since we do not need to drive breakthroughs nor build stoppings for ventilation until we have reached their end when we connect them together. We have two methods of sending air to the face of these dead ends. We can laboriously and expeilsively install brattice cloth, as we go, or we can use a small auxiliary blower with canvas tubing to the face. Indeed I may say that one of the great difficulties encountered under the new systems is in the ventilation of these narrow faces. After they have been connected and an air circuit or current established, ventilation becomes plain sailing until the block is worked out. The auxiliary blower when used with flexible canvas tubing, has been found to be the ideal answer to the question of how to ventilate the headings which are anywhere from 100 to 1,000 feet long. These small blowers when properly used, can go a very long way to assist in further reducing the cost of production already assured by the new method of mining. Right angle bends are made by the tubing manufacturers to enable the fan to sit in the fresh air current, yet out of the way of operations and any recirculation is positively avoided by blowing the air around the corner to the face.

Jan 1, 1926

[ ]

Jan 1, 1990

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Gentlemen, the next order of business, if you wish to discuss it is Mechanical Loading. We still have a little time left that could be devoted to that subject, and the meeting will be open now for that purpose. Where is Mr. Edge- worth? J. E. EDGEWORTH (Foreman, Union Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming): Here. PRESIDENT BOTTOMLEY: Yon start the ball rolling. Tell us what you are doing in the Rock Springs District, on the mechanical loading. SECRETARY SHURART Mr. Edgeworth is the man at the face handling the coal. He never sees the light of day these late winter mornings.

Jan 1, 1927

By Gary Carmack

Overview: Public awareness of the drug abuse problem within the government and industry is growing each day. The economic cost to industry is staggering-estimated to be more than $50 billion per year. Employee drug testing programs are one way to combat the problem, yet they are not without legal and scientic pitfalls. Some of the issues and needs that should be considered before implementing or continuing a testing program are: Why test? What do you test for? Are the results accurate? What impact will the new Federal Rules have? Accuracy of the testing continues to be controversial, especially when the "poppy-seed" and "cold-medications" issues are mentioned. The new Federal laboratory certification program which is about to start, should reduce or eliminate the question of lab error. Determination of on the job impairment will, however, continue to be a problem.

Jan 1, 1988

H. C. GLAZE: There is no question in my mind that the day of direct current distribution is practically ended so far as large coal properties are concerned. Another thing that Mr. Drennan touched on that is of the utmost importance, is that of voltage-voltage to the various pieces of equipment inside the mine. You all know how expensive it is to have motors in operation in important places where the voltage .is about half that which the motor should have. This is particularly true in the direct current system. It slows down production, causes burnouts and destruction to apparatus, and is a question that you men have got to go into. It costs a great deal of money, as Mr. Drennan pointed out, to take care of this. The wires are large and cumbersome, while; on the other hand, with an alternating current system you can use a minimum amount of wire. We have installed this class of equipment with so-called "pick-proof" cable of 2,200 volts down slopes, and I have never heard of any trouble whatsoever from this cause.

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1941

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

Jan 1, 1948

By D. J. Griffiths

Beyond doubt it is practically impossible to eliminate all chances of accidents from falls. Mother Earth is not going to give up her treasures without some sacrificing on our part. This particular question ranks among the important subjects connected with coal-mining, and has been given less attention as a factor of life- and limb-destroyer than any other cause. The single fatalities which happen create very little attention; nevertheless, when counted up at the end of the year, they outnumber the unfortunate ones that are mowed down by the wholesale by mine explosions. Fire-damp and coal dust were often considered the greatest evils in coal-mining. All records, however, prove this conclusion to be wrong. The second annual report of the Bureau of Mines gives the loss of life caused by falls of coal and roof in 1910 as 1,310, and in 1911 as 1,321. The reports of Pennsylvania mine inspectors for a period of thirty-three years show that 59.38 per cent of all the accidents underground were caused by falls of roof and coal. Also, the Bureau of Mines shows in its last issue on fatalities that accidents from fall of roof and coal killed more men than any other two causes combined, and that they account for more than half of the deaths under- ground. It seems we are getting too accustomed, taking too many things for granted, running too many risks, trusting too much for the best, and preparing too little for the worst. We must remove the cause; then the effects will cease. However, I can see that a better day is here. The main damaging factors underground are falls of roof and sides. A bad roof is tender and lacks the adhesive qualities to sustain its own weight over comparatively small areas. A roof of any character which is frequently penetrated by well-defined slips and cleats, is characterized as a treacherous roof. The carelessness of men has been one of the main causes of most of the accidents in mining as well as in any other industries. Three Grades of Miners Miners can be classified into three distinct grades, to-wit: the experienced and careful, the experienced and reckless, and the inexperienced. The accidents which the first class usually meet with occur through the carelessness of their co-workers, as well as through accidents which are termed unforeseen, such as falling roof between timbers, and between the timbers and the face of the coal. This may have 'previously given evidence of being absolutely sound and safe, but be released by invisible slips or by sudden outburst of occluded gases in large quantities, as we term big blowers or feeders,

Jan 1, 1913

By Robert E. Hanes

Coal Perspectives We are the ?Saudi Arabia of Coal Reserves? (Billions of Short Tons) [ ] However, China & India have added approximately one half of the U.S. installed base capacity for electrical generation, in TWO YEARS ? and it took us some 50-60 years to install our coal fleet.

Jan 1, 2008

By G. A. Knox

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject assigned to me would cover a great many pages if it were gone into thoroughly. Therefore. I have just touched on a few of the most important points. I think that everyone engaged in the production of commercial coal understands all about its preparation, but I will set forth my views as to how I believe it is best accomplished. In order to produce the best prepared coal, your first attention should be to the miner at the working face. The most careful system of blasting should be adopted to avoid heavy charging of holes which results in the shattering of the coal. The lump, or any other screened sizes that may be screened from coal that has been improperly shot, are subject to greater degradation in transportation and handling, as well as reducing screened sizes, which results in dissatisfied customers in the first case, and lower realization in the latter.

Jan 1, 1928

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

Jan 1, 1952

Cautionary Note about Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements made by us in this presentation that are not historical facts or that relate to our future plans, expectations, events or performance are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Our actual results may differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the risks described under the heading ?Risk Factors? in the Prospectus Supplement. All forward-looking statements are qualified by these risks and uncertainties. We undertake no obligation to update the information contained in any forward-looking statements unless required by law. All statements made by us in this presentation are further qualified in all respects by the information disclosed in the Prospectus.

Jan 1, 2007

By Steve Griles

Mr. Griles did not make his speech available for reprint. Looking Down the Road: The Environmental Side of the 1990s and Beyond Environmental Social Responsibility Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, Widow Combs, Bohpal and Three Mile Island are familiar names to all of us-names which evoke memories of environmental tragedies. These memories, as well as memories of other environmental disasters, lead us to pose this question: What is the nature of the environmental social contact between industry and society? The manner in which one answers this question will. in large measure, answer the question of where one thinks environmental issues will go, or should go, in the 1990s and beyond. The history of the evolution of the environmental movement will be helpful in defining and under- standing just what society's environmental responsibility is and, perhaps, what it will be. To Define the Future Start With the Past The common law, which most of the United States adopted from the English system of jurisprudence, traditionally considered pollution control and other environmental issues to be a matter of determining the relative rights of private property owners and of individuals. Legal and equitable theories, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass and the law of riparian rights, were utilized to allocate responsibilities between parties under the common law. The discharge of pollutants into streams and into the air was by and large considered acceptable, at least up to the point that another's "reasonable" use of the same air or waterway was significantly impeded. Further, the judicial decisions interpreting the applicability of the common law to the protection of the environment generally reflected the social and economic pressures of the age. During the Industrial Revolution, the decisions and policies had a marked tendency to favor industrial development. Jobs and industrial growth are deemed as important, and in some cases more important, than the protection of people and property. Additionally, the idea of a social responsibility, beyond that owed to a competing land or water user, was nearly alien to the early common law.' One could even go so far as to say that, had there been a social environmental contract under early common law (which, of course, there was not); but if there were, it would have been to promote actions which facilitated industrial development, even at the expense of the environment. Post-World War LI industrial expansion brought with it a growing awareness of limits on the environment's ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution. Thus evolved an era of social and political adjustment, as society began to shift away from supporting big business and industrial development and toward supporting domestic government programs and limits on industry. States gradually stepped in with efforts to address environmental issues. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the West Virginia Surface Mining Act of 1939, while lax in comparison to today's standards, nevertheless marked definitive efforts toward altering the balance between industrial development and environmental protection Pollution control continued to be viewed as a state responsibility through the 1950s, until Congress began, for the first time, to allocate funds for federal research on air and water pollution and to implement

Jan 1, 1988

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 1969

By Franklin P. Wood

Unnumbered ages have passed since the time when nature's laboratories were working without the aid of capital or labor unions assisted only by earth's cooling crust and old Sol's rays, to lay the prodigious coal beds of the earth and distil the oils which now furnish the basis for the world's great industries. Strangely enough rays from the same old sun probably somewhat diminished in intensity are still drawing from earth to clouds the water that will run down hill and through man-made devices produce energy to compete with that made with the products created in ages past. So now we find that within the past century vast human industries have grown up around the products of these agencies and here we are today discussing the many problems connected therewith and among the others the subject of this paper, which is essentially the relation of COAL to OIL in industry. The problems involved are those of human relationship and are not fundamentally unsolvable when engineering skill and knowledge is properly applied. The last few years has developed a brand of pessimism that is especially prevalent in the coal industry, at any rate in the west where we come in contact with it. In any general discussion with coal men, a very short time only is required to bring out the feeling or expression that the coal business is on the rocks and the reasons run the gamut of human deviltry. We have heard that in the not far distant past corn was so cheap that the farmers were compelled to burn it and thus deprive the coal mines of their well earned right to sell coal for this purpose. We have heard that the flood of oil is so vast that it was being burned in preference to coal, and to heap insult on injury that the rail- road locomotives were burning oil in order to pull coal away from the mines. We have heard that the union was responsible for all the woes to which the industry is subjected. We have heard that the family tin lizzie is so depleting the family exchequer that coal could not be purchased and if purchased could not be collected for. We have heard that producing mines are so numerous that the profits are a negligible quantity. These are but a few of the reasons assigned for making the coal producers a class of pessimists which is not good for the industry. All these reasons given and all the others must be taken collectively and these are not the cause but the effect of a rapidly changing civilization. An analogy may be found in the experience of many of us in the electric industry a few years ago. You may remember that less than 20 years ago the high efficiency Tungsten electric globe was introduced. It was so much more efficient than the old carbon lamp that only one-third of the current previously required was needed to produce the same illumination. Consternation seized the ranks of electrical men who had little or no vision, for the out- look was that so little current would be sold that everyone would be bankrupt. This limited vision, however, did not prevail, for all engaged in the industry spurred on by necessity, accomplished many of the things that we are now enjoying the fruits of be- cause the electric industry has grown and is growing by leaps and bounds and every highly efficient improvement is greeted with rejoicing. It is well known that when the old type of carbon arc lamp began to be replaced by modern units the manufacturer of carbon rods thought his doom was sealed and yet these same manufacturers have so adjusted them- selves to conditions that the dry battery business of today is of vastly greater volume and profit than was the carbon rod business of the past. Of course, there are industries that should not have survived anyway that have gone down and out to makeway for vastly improved conditions and can

Jan 1, 1925