Search Documents

[Adams, Leonard E .................... 8 19 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Adams, V. H ............................. 422 E. San Miguel, Colorado Springs, Colo: Allen, Earl W ........................... 2636 S. Gilpin St., Denver 10, Colo. Allen, Thomas ......................... State Coal Mine Inspector, State Office Bldg., Denver, Colo. Ambler, J. B .............................. P. 0. Box 591, Denver, Colo. Andrew, William . Boulder Valley Coal Co., Louisville, Colo. Apperson, A. B. .................... Brown Hotel, Denver, Colo. Arnold, G. O. ........................ Dawson, New Mexico Audin, Abel .......................... Somerset, Colo. Audin, Clement, Jr ................... Paonia, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1947

JUNE 11-MORNING SESSION The meeting was called to order Wednesday morning, June 11, 1913,,at 10 o'clock, by the President, E. H. Weitzel. Addresses of welcome were given to the convention by Governor Spry, Mayor Park, and Rev. P. A: Simpkins; 'the several addresses being interspersed by music. The session adjourned at 11 :50 a. m., in order to attend the organ recital at the Tabeknacle at:'12 o'clock. JUNE 11-AFTERNOON SESSION The meeting. Gas called -to order at 2 o'clock, with President E. H. Weitzel in- the .chair. The minutes of, the organization meeting and that of the Executive Board, the 1atier:of which was held April 15, 1913, in Denver, were read and both' approved. A letter from A. 3. Reef, of Denver, containing proposed amendments to the Constitution and By.-Laws, was read, and, upon motion,, was referred to the Executive Board, with .instructions to report upon the matter at the next, regular meeting. The proposed amendments follow: Article I1 (regarding who may become members and how) to be amended to read as follows: "Membership in this Institute shall be of three classes-corporate, individual, and honorary. Any company, firm, or individual operator actually engaged in the mining of coal within the territory of this Institute may become a corporate member on application, and by consent of a majority of the members present at any stated meeting. Any person, who is directly engaged or interested: in some branch of coal-mining may become an individual member upon application, and by consent of a majority of the members present at any stated meeting. Honorary members may be elected at the discretion of the Institute."

Jan 1, 1913

Jan 1, 1980

By Glen A. Knox

The writer has been asked to set forth for this Institute, the experience of the past eleven months in the mining operation conducted at Sweetwater Mine in which coal has been produced by the use of Link-Belt Conveyors on long faces. The coal in this mine has an average of six feet three inches in thickness, and lies on an average pitch of five degrees. The roof is a sandy shale of medium hardness and has been generally considered as good top in the room and pillar method of mining. When our company became interested in conveyors, the writer visited most all of the mines in the East where conveyors and other mechanical methods of mining were in use and decided that the modified method of w-hat is in use at the Norton-West Virginia mine would be the most feasible for our conditions. We in- stalled three hundred feet of conveyor as an experiment to see whether or not our roof could be handled and taken care of on long faces. This three hundred feet was installed as two separate conveyors, one as a face conveyor-100 feet in length, the other as a heading conveyor that delivered the coal into the mine car on the main entry. This face was worked directly on .the strike and down the pitch. This did not prove to be a success as the caving of the roof carried over to the working face and necessitated propping between the conveyor and the face and it was also necessary to shovel coal on the conveyor up the pitch. After working out this block, 200 feet in length, we installed these two conveyors at a place adjoining this worked out block, but on a half V shape shown on the sketch. This block of coal was sixty feet wide. This method proved to be very successful. We cut a place, moved the conveyor against the face before shooting and carried two rows of cribs between the conveyor and the cave, and caved the roof every second cut. After working out this block we were satisfied that this system was feasible with our mine. We then ordered twelve hundred feet more of the same type as the trial conveyor with the exception of a very few modifications. We then installed this fifteen hundred foot unit on the four faces shown on the sketch, with one hundred feet to each face, two hundred feet on each heading and three hundred feet on the main conveyor that delivered the coal into the pit cars. We also had a head and rear section for each of the four advancing places shown on the sketch. As the sections were taken out of the heading conveyors they were installed on the advancing conveyors, and when the faces approached the main conveyor, the main conveyor was taken out and installed in the next uphill or main conveyor place. The roof caved very well in line of the points and was broken about every twenty feet. It broke in a straight line and did not curve at each V. We encountered no trouble unless we permitted one of the points to get behind. The maximum tonnage possible to be produced on this method was estimated to be seven hundred and twenty-five tons a day, assuming that all places were cut and cleaned up in one shift, and this we did for several consecutive days. While this was a success from a cost standpoint, we felt that we could

Jan 1, 1925

The Saturday morning session of the Forty-seventh Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 9:30 o'clock a. m., June 9, 1951, in the Junior Ballroom of the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City; Utah, with Mr. A. P. Cederlof presiding. CHAIRMAN CEDERLOF: Mr. Whiteside suggests that we have the Treasurer's Report. Would you like to read this report,: Mr. Reese? MR. GOMER REESE, SR.: Gentlemen, we have here the Auditor's report. A. B. Foulger, President The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Dear Mr. Foulger: Following is the report of the Treasurer from May 31, 1950 to May 31, 1951: [ ]

Jan 1, 1951

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

Lloyd W. Ingles, Superintendent, Allen mine, Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation. Stonewall, Colorado, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He introduced George C. Trevorrow, Safety Director, Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who spoke on "Recent Developments for Improving Safety in Underground Coal Mines." (Refer to the index for the printed text of this paper.) Following Mr. Trevorrow's paper, James Westfield, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., spoke briefly to the group or some of the new methods of controlling fire mentioned in Mr. Trevorrow's paper. Mr. Westfield stated that the Foam plug had been used in the Bureau's experimental mine, and was also used in New Mexico, but was not successful in putting out the lire. In a recent fire in Southwest Virginia where 18 men were lost, the foam plug was used after the fire had been burning for about 6 or 7 days. It did have a good effect, but the section had to be finally sealed off. In a fire in Pennsylvania about 2 weeks ago, the foam plug was put into action after about 9 hours. Although the section was finally sealed, managers of the mine credited the foam plug in saving the mine. Mr. Westfield stated that equipment must be at hand when fighting a fire; that time wasted in securing proper equipment may make the difference. Mr. Westfield also stated that as late as 2 months ago, it seemed that a methane monitoring device was as far as 4 or 5 years away. Now it is expected that it may be put in production within the year. Experimental models are in use in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Mr. Westfield concluded by complimenting Mr. Trevorrow on his excellent paper.

Jan 1, 1960

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

Jan 1, 1923

[Proceedings VOL. II. PART V. CONTENTS PAGE Mine Haulage, by R. A. McAllister-----------------145 Efficiency in Shot Firing, by Robert A. Marshall -- 149 Some Facts About Coal Mining, by Sam Andrews -153 Flexoid Tubing and Its Application to Coal Mines As a Means of Temporary Ventilation, by George A. Brown -161 Longwall Coal Mining, by Thomas Collier ------ 163 Advantages of Having Such Men as Fire Bosses Under State Rather Than Corporation Jurisdiction, by R. S. Morton ---- 165 Longwall Mining, by Parley Potter -------169 DeWatering of the Rouse Mine, by D. A. Stout ---175]

Jan 1, 1921

By Lloyd Garrison

The Garrison Automatic Domestic Stoker is a device intended primarily for residences and small apartments. In the development of the device com- [ ] mercial features have been given as much consideration as have engineering features. As a result of this consideration the stoker is well within the reach of the middle class buyer as regards price, while at the same time it possesses all of the features of comfort, economy and convenience which accompanies this type of stoker. The stoker is of the over feed type and uses the natural draft of the furnace. A 1/12 H.P., 1,800 R.P.M., motor drives a small worm gear unit through [ ] grooved pulley and rubber belt, effecting a speed reduction from 1,800 to 6 R.P.M. The gear shaft drives a slide situated in the bottom of the coal hopper that causes the coal to be deposited on a link belt chain which carries it through a trough and drops it on the grate. Use of a screw feed has been purposely avoided because of

Jan 1, 1925

Meeting called to order by President Herres, eleven o'clock A. M., Monday, August 27, 1928. Address of Welcome by Mr. T. S. Taliaferro, Jr. Address by Mr. William Redshaw, Chairman of the Rock Springs Chapter of the Institute. Paper, "The Effect of Mechanical Coal Mining on Mine Safety," by Lyman Fearn, State Mine Inspector, Wyoming. Paper, "Safety," F. C. Miller, Chief Chemist, Colorado Fuel & Iron Com¬pany, Trinidad, Colorado. Afternoon session, meeting called to order two P. M. On suggestion of Mr. William Littlejohn, the President appointed a special resolutions committee, consisting of Messrs. P. J. Quealy, R. L. Hair and William Littlejohn, to draft resolutions protesting against the granting of a franchise for piping natural gas into Salt Lake City, to be sent to the City Commissioners of Salt Lake City, with carbon copy to the Utilities Commission of Utah. The Committee submitted resolutions which, upon motion of Mr. Littlejohn, and seconded by Mr. Butler, were adopted and sent by telegraph to the Utilities Commission and the City Commissioners.

Jan 1, 1928

[Adams, E. R Rock Springs, Wyoming Adams, V. H. 422 East San Miguel Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado Allen, Earl W 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B . Box 1920, Denver 1. Colorado Allen, Thomas Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado Alston, G. L Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ambler, J. B Box 591, Denver, Colorado Apperson, A. B. 394 Elm Street, Denver 7, Colorado Arnett, L. L. 325 North First West, Price, Utah Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audin, Clement, Jr Paonia, Colorado Audin, Clement, Sr Box 627, Paonia, Colorado Audin, Ralph Box 285, Somerset, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1952

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

By J. A. Smith

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

Jan 1, 1924

By Wm. Monay

MR. MONAY (Vice President Kinney Coal Co., Scofield, Utah): The past year and a half has witnessed a series of coal mine disasters in Utah and Wyoming, concentrated into the short space of a few months, following a long period of years in which the industry was comparatively free from devastating calamities. The natural result has been a hysterical activity on the part of bureaus, commissions and professional reformers who know little about coal mining from a practical standpoint. This activity has been met by the industry in Utah with an attitude of submission, no doubt the result of the fear of being misunderstood by the public. But it is my firm conviction that the lives and property of the coal industry will find their surest guaranty of protection in the humanity, and in the self interest of those operating and working in the mines, rather than in governmental regulation. Inelastic, inflexible blanket statutes and rules will simply stifle and hamper the initiative and progress of our industry in working out its own salvation, under the varying and changing conditions of different localities, different conditions, and in different mines. We who have spent our lives in digging in the mines and operating them, know more about this business than anyone else and I believe it is time for us to speak up and no longer sit meekly by while inexperienced bureaus and unskilled commissions make up laws, rules and regulations for us which when made are on the books to stay, even though in a short time they may prove inapplicable, in whole or in part, or be superseded by something different, and which in some cases create new dangers or lull us into a false sense of security. Shortly after the Castle Gate explosion in March, 1924, a new set of safety rules was issued by the Indus- trial Commission of the State of Utah to become effective July 1st of the same year, the most important of which prohibits the use of black powder in any mine--gaseous or non-gaseous; prohibits the use of open flame lamps in any mine-gaseous or non-gaseous; and requires that rock dusting in all main haulage ways as far as the freezing point and required that all mining machines be equipped with water to be applied while cutting. These rules have been characterized as "Utah's Monument to her Dead Miners" in a large poster spread broadcast over the country from an office in New York that styles itself the Association for Labor Legislation. In reviewing the coal mining history of the State of Utah, in the year 1900, a serious disaster occurred at Winter Quarters. The cause of the same is believed to be an explosion of powder that was stored in the mine, which was a common practice in the early days, and from that time until the Castle Gate disaster, March 8, 1924, a period of some twenty-four years, no explosion of any kind occurred in this district. During all this period open lamps were used, considerable black powder was used, rock dusting was unheard of, sprinkling with water was very generally done-all without any catastrophe. Since the adoption of the new rules, we have 'had a very violent explosion at the Carbon Fuel mine in Spring Canyon. At the time of this explosion, 3,000 feet of the main slope had been rock dusted several times between July 1st and September 21st. The second left entry, which is a main haulage way, a distance of 3,000 feet was completely rock dusted on the date of the explosion. This mine is not considered extremely gaseous, yet an explosion as violent as that of the Castle Gate mine occurred. Some thirty men who had been loading coal in various parts of the mine on this Sun- day, the day of the explosion, and other men employed in rock dusting the second left entry, had just left the mine a little while before it occurred, and no abnormal condition in the mine was noted. At the time of the explosion five machine men were in the mine.

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 1974

MR. GERALD ALLEY (C 11 i e f Draftsman, C. F. & I. Co.) : This invention is primarily intended to correct anything that goes wrong with the fan and any conditions in your air current underground which do not produce a change in your fan water gauge

Jan 1, 1925

By S. W. Farnham

Those who remember the years of patient effort and the slow results obtained in the first introduction of electrical coal cutters and locomotives will, I think, admit that mechanical loading of coal is unquestionably being established at a much more rapid rate than any previous application of machinery to reduce manual labor in mines. There are many operators who consider the progress of the loaders today as slow, but considering the number of years it took to thoroughly establish electrical coal cutters and locomotives, and comparing it with the short time that the mechanical loader has been on the market, and the results that have been obtained today, they will admit, I think, that the progress of the latter is much more rapid. It is about 35 years since the advent of the electrical coal cutter and electric locomotive. Their use has brought about these improved conditions, increased tonnage per mine and other features, which are of assistance to the installation of mechanical loaders. The management and the technical staff in practically all of the American mines are trained in the use of electrical machinery and understand its operation, care and maintenance. . There is frequently, a surplus of electrical power and wiring available to take care of the small requirements of the electrical loader. The mechanical loader, therefore, starts today with the ground prepared for it. Those manufacturing companies who have had years of experience in the design and construction of mining machinery, know in a large measure what to incorporate in their designs to make the parts of the new type of machine effectively strong and to operate with efficiency under the severe conditions encountered in mining service. All these advantages greatly assist the success of a new type of machine such as the mechanical loader. In spite of these advantages, however, there are bound to be some failures. All new types of loaders have to be developed. We hear of some that are a success and some that are set aside. The field of application of each type and its limitations first must be determined by actual operation. The earlier loaders had to be changed and improved in design as weaknesses developed. Not all of the new types of coal loaders have been built by mining machinery manufacturers of long experience, and the lack of experience in this line is responsible for some of the early failures. The coal mining company staffs and also those of the loader companies had to learn what the operating factors were that made mechanical loading a success. The difference in results obtained by loaders in different properties under similar physical conditions indicates that the mine management is a very large, if not the major factor, affecting the efficiency of mechanical loading. Many articles have been written on the question of loading. The subject has been quite fully discussed at recent coal meetings and in the technical press. It is not always as easy or simple a matter to form conclusions as may first appear as to one's own particular loading problem. Mechanical loading is a comparatively new art, and many companies while claiming that loaders are quite successful, do not have an accurate line on the actual saving they are affecting. Many of them have only a few of the factors taken into account in their costs. Many loaders have been generally bought without very careful consideration given to all details and except where extremely favorable conditions prevail, failure resulted. When contemplating the installation of mechanical loading, one naturally desires to select the type of loader that will, fit his mining conditions. The things

Jan 1, 1924

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you any maximum length that you make your dust barriers? What I mean by that is, your entries are 10 feet wide, and I believe if I remember right, in your single track entries you had only one dust barrier to cover the full width of the. entry in your double track entries, I believe you had two-I would like to know, have you any maximum length you make these barriers? MR. CHAS. LEGER, ROYAL FUEL CO., UTAH: It is stated that they shouldn't be over 8 feet long to obtain sensitiveness. If they make them over 8 feet they are not as sensitive as they should be. They should be made short for two reasons in order to keep the sagging out and to make them as sensitive as possible. MR. DAN HARRINGTON, U. S. BUREAU OF MINES: I didn't come here to enter into any extended discussion on rock dusting or to discuss in particular the situation at Dawson. At the February meeting at Denver, we made a complete study of this matter. Since that time a report was completed and reported to the Phelps-Dodge Corporation and Mr. Moorhead probably has a copy of it, which can give you more complete information as to what we found. We found that with the adobe dusting that they have done, they had six miles of entry pretty thoroughly dusted and of all the samples we took, at least 95 percent of them showed that not only the floor but the ribs and roof were in such a condition that an explosion could not originate in any part of this entry. In other words, this entry as it was dusted was absolutely protected from ignition and propagation. The adobe they used was of material that was non-combustible. In most instances there was not more than 3 per cent of moisture in it.

Jan 1, 1924