Search Documents

By C. A. Allen

In presenting a summary of the uses of fine and pulverized coal the writer has borne in mind that we are not trying to determine what a combustion engineer should know but we are only trying to find out in what ways the consumption of slack can be stimulated. First discussing the use of powdered coal it can be stated that it has passed the first experimental stage but is still capable of much development and improvement. It has already found successful application in stationary and locomotive boilers, cement kilns, calcining furnaces, reverberatory smelting furnaces and many other types of furnaces, such as open hearth furnaces and annealing furnaces. For stationary boilers it seems to have been thoroughly demonstrated that powdered coal is more efficient than stoker installations. Over-all efficiences of boiler and furnace in stoker installations of the best type run from 70 to 76 per cent; whereas the efficiency of powdered coal installations averages slightly over 80 per cent. However, due to the increased cost of pulverized coal, the increased efficiency of these installations over stokers, from a money stand-point, will not be more than 1 or 2 per cent. The fusing of the ash in pulverized coal installations has given some trouble but apparently is easily overcome, on the other hand the fine ash, which is carried along with the draft, causes trouble both in the boiler and by settling on surrounding buildings or ground. Offsetting the disadvantages the great advantages of pulverized coal for stationary boilers seem to be: First-the ease with which a change in the load on the boiler can be taken care of. Second-when a boiler is cut out for a short period the "stand-by" losses are much less and, Third-a much poorer grade of fuel can be used. In many cases where pulverized coal has been used it has replaced slack coal which is of little advantage to the coal operator. However,, in other places it has replaced gas or oil and this is where the coal man is interested. Pulverized coal has the same advantages as the liquid or gas fuel but the question as to which is preferable depends on their relative cost at the point of use. In small stationary boilers where stokers are not used, very frequently the larger sizes of coal are, and it would be an advantage to the coal industry for them to be converted so as to burn pulverized coal, but so far there are only records of a few of such small installations having been a success and there is apparently room for a large amount of experimentation. In furnaces, such as smelting and assaying furnaces, annealing furnaces, etc., slack coal is not used and where pulverized coal has been installed it nearly always replaces fuel oil or gas. Just how much increased consumtion of coal can be made by pulverizing it for use in furnaces of this type can not be determined but it seems worthy of investigation. For locomotive boilers pulverized coal has found some application up to date but where it was being used in the United States it was stopped when we entered the war. In Brazil, however, the Central Railway has been using pulverized coal for locomotives with excellent results. If it could be possible to apply it to locomotive use where fuel oil is now used, or the larger sizes of coal, it would certainly make a big difference in the slack situation. Now as to the uses of slack coal without pulverizing. The writer's investigations lead him to believe that the greatest opportunities in this direction are in the line of increasing its use by apartment houses and small home owners. In fact in looking into the subject I found that a number of men in Salt Lake City are using run of mine coal in the usual type of house furnaces, some of them by separating the fines and wetting them down before feeding to the furnace claim they get no loss whatever through the grate. However, for best results with fine coal different types of furnaces must be installed and for apartment houses it would seem necessary to have either a small automatic stoker or else spray the fine coal in with an air blast from

Jan 1, 1922

[CURTIS M. BELDEN RMCMI PRESIDENT 1999-2000 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 96th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 25 thru June 27,2000 Durango, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1999

The session opened at 9:00 a.m. Presiding- Herman E. Knight, Vice President, The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. and Gulf Mineral Resources Co., Denver, Colorado. The first speaker was Dale A. Eastman, President, Eastman, Griggs & Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah. Subject-"Professional Staffing for Mining Operations." Mr. Eastman received his Business Degree from Shadran State College in 1971. He was Head Coach in basketball and football in Lyman, Wyoming, prior to joining Bectel. With Bectel five years in training, development and staffing. Was Director of Construction Administration for Southwest, United States, Bectel Power Division prior to entering the Executive Search Division. Currently President, Eastman, Griggs & Associates and also Vice President of E&B Investments and Managing General Partner Duffers Ltd. (See Index for printed text of Mr. Eastman's paper.) Mr. George J. Miller, Attorney, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Denver, Colorado, was the second speaker. Subject-"Rail Transportation After Staggers Act."

Jan 1, 1981

By D. Harrington

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

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1992

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

Jan 1, 1982

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1924

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 P. F. Patterson

It is a well established fact that 60 per cent of all accidents in coal mines occur from falls of roof and coal at or in the proximity of the working face. Notwithstanding that this is well known, and has been frequently discussed by mining men, this seems to be the irreducible minimum. It is even said by those in a position to know that the percentage stated is increasing. With this, information before us it would seem that not enough attention is being given to close supervision at the working face, and until this is done we may expect to continue experiencing an increase in the accidents in this area. No workman generally feels that it is more important to finish loading a car of coal than to set a timber for protection, and many accidents happen from this source, not from a lack of knowledge of the dangerous conditions existing, but negligence in taking remedies necessary to remove the danger. It is true that nearly all state laws require the mine foreman or his assistant to visit each working face every day, but with the constantly changing conditions on account of the advance of the working faces, these daily visits may be entirely inadequate to discover possible dangers and prevent accidents. The obvious remedy then is closer and more systematic inspection and supervision of the working faces. Many accidents are caused in mines on account of not enough clearance between the rib and track or between timber and track. On all main haulage ways. there should be a space of at least 30 inches between the rib and track, or timber and track, and on all rooms not less than two feet should be left between the track and upright timbers.. A great deal has been said and written with regard to systematic timbering. We doubt very much the feasibility of adopting any standard of timbering that would be suitable for all roof conditions, and any such system in our opinion would not tend to cause a decrease in the number of accidents. The proper place to put up a prop, regardless of whether it conforms to any established system, is under a piece of loose roof. No habit is becoming more prevalent among miners and other mine workers than wearing gloves, principally flimsy canvas gloves, which afford no protection to the wearers and are the direct cause of many hand injuries. If gloves must be worn, and no doubt they will be as the habit has become well established, then they should be made from some heavy material and should fit the hands fairly snug.

Jan 1, 1923

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I have every reason to know Mr. Pryde was carrying out some experiment a while ago in some of his mines. He and I had a little correspondence on the question, and I think he may have a word or two to say about it. He has not been on his feet today at all. I will ask Mr. Pryde to tell us what he has to say. MR. PRYDE: I have not very much to say about shooting coal with permissible powder as far as slack is concerned because we are not in the commercial business. All of our coal goes to the railroad and a very large part of it is crushed for use in the stokers of the locomotives. We are on a 100 per cent permissible powder basis and as far as I am able to see, I do not believe that the percentage of slack is increasing with its use. We find it hard to convince our commercial neighbors of this fact because they are naturally very much against increasing their percentage of slack on ac- count of the low price received for this grade of coal. I, personally, believe that where a change is made from black powder to permissible powder the percentage of slack will be increased for a time because the miners have been accustomed to using black powder and they are rather suspicious about going to the permissible powder and I do not believe that we can blame them very much. So the tendency with them is to use too much powder. We have gradually overcome this, although, as I said before, we have not kept close track of the production of slack. However, we try to get as large an amount of lump coal as possible. Broadly speaking, I can say from observation that in my opinion there is very little difference in the percentage of slack with the use of the permissible powder that we have today than there was with the use of black powder. I also get this information from our mine superintendents. Mr. Peterson and the other explosive men have been very helpful to us in the use of permissible powder and I confess I have to take everything back that I said several years ago. At that time I was against permissible powder, particularly on account of the cost, but, with the newer permissible powder, we have gotten the cost down very well. I know today that the cost of permissible powder in the coal mines of the Union Pacific Coal Company is less than when we were using black powder. I know this because of the fact that we kept a record of the number of tons we got with black powder, and the number of tons we get with permissible powder compares very favorably in cost. I know this, too, because of the fact that our employes, except in the first few weeks of using permissible powder, have made no demand upon us for any in- crease ill pay to offset any added cost that might accrue in the use of permissible powder and the fact that they have asked for no increase is very conclusive proof to me that it is not

Jan 1, 1925

The 64th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at Jackson Lake Lodge, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President .Tames Westfield. He introduced Mr. Raymond C. Lillie, President of Grand Teton Lodge Company, who welcomed the members to Jackson Lake Lodge. Mr. Lillie stated he had been with the organization since the Lodge was built. They had a snowstorm the day before our meeting so stated it was perfect weather for coal miners. Mr. Westfield introduced President Joe T. Taylor, Superintendent, York Canyon Mine, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Raton, New Mexico. Mr. Taylor was born in Miami, Florida. Attended the Colorado School of Mines and graduated in 1952. He was associated with Sunnyside Operations of Kaiser Steel Corporation in Utah until 1962. Was then transferred to the Koehler Mine in Raton, New Mexico, as Superintendent, and had charge of opening the new mine, York Canyon, and at the present time is in charge of Kaiser operations there.

Jan 1, 1968

The Thirty-sixth, Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at the Shirley-Savoy Hotel, Denver, Colorado, Thursday, June 23, 1938, at 11:15 o'clock a.m., by Thomas Allen, Vice-President for Colorado, who announced that owing to the serious illness of Fritz Nyman's father, Mr. Nyman would be unable to attend the convention. Vice-President Allen welcomed the convention as a representative of Governor Ammons. Owing to the overlapping of a previous engagement, Mayor Benjamin F. Stapleton regretfully arrived too late to welcome the gathering in behalf of the City of Denver. Vice-President Allen selected Mr. F. W. Whiteside to preside at the morning session. On motion made, seconded and carried, the reading of the minutes of the Thirty-fifth Regular Meeting was dispensed with, inasmuch as they are printed in the proceedings. Chairman Whiteside suggested that the appointment of the personnel for the Committee on Resolutions, Nominating, Membership and Auditing be deferred until later in the meeting, and on motion made by Mr. Oliver, duly seconded and carried, this suggestion was adopted.

Jan 1, 1938

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

Jan 1, 1925

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

Jan 1, 1982

SECRETARY SHUBART: This letter will not surprise you. (Reads) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Mines Washington Sept. 4, 192G. Benedict Shubart, Secy, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. Denver, Colo. Dear Sir: "Sorry not to be able to be with you but since my function in the Institute has been largely along the line of `stirrer up of trouble' (of course always with the aid of Dalrymple), I do not wish to fall from grace now so am sending you a pamphlet on the last page of which is a' tabulation as to accident indices of various coal mining states and it seems to indicate that the states comprising the Rocky Mountain Institute have the poorest accident record of all the states producing coal. "It seems to me that even allowing for possible deficiencies in connection with placing accidents upon basis of hours of exposure, our western states need to `tighten up' as to safety practices, hence I hope that the Safety Committee report will be both drastic and progressive and that western coal mines apply the drastic proposals in addition to approving them as the policy of the Institute. Why wouldn't it be advisable to have a committee appointed to ascertain why the safety record of the states comprising the Institute is so bad as to coal mines? Wishing the Institute all kinds of success." (Signed) D. HARRINGTON. SECRETARY SHUBART: He encloses this pamphlet issued by the Bureau of Mines. On the back of it is this table; and it is a fact that the Rocky Mountain States are down at the lowest in almost every case, at the lowest point, with the highest accident rate in almost every kind of accident. Maybe he is wrong; maybe he states this for reasons. That is a rotten looking table for us.

Jan 1, 1926

The Sixtieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:10 a.m. by Past President Mike Zakotnik, Jr., General Superintendent, The Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming. Mike introduced Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals and Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah; and President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. President's Address Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Min- ing Institute, guests, visitors and friends: I feel this is a distinct honor to talk to you on the occasion of this 60th regular meeting of the Institute. I once assumed this would be the Institute's 60th birthday, but later found that the first meeting was held in the State Capitol at Denver on November 12, 1912, at which time a comparatively small group of operators duly organized the Institute; a Mr. Weitzel of Colorado Fuel & Iron Company was then elected president and our late and dearly remembered Fred W. Whiteside, whose wife Gussie now carries Fred's work forward, was elected secretary. From Fred's records, early meetings were held semi-annually at rather irregular intervals, so that this 60th meeting is approximately the 52nd birthday of the organization and I am number 44 to serve as president. This latter development, I am sure, was conjured up last year by certain members at Glenwood Springs when I was absent. Anyway, I am honored and trust 'that these sessions will be both interesting and instructive in helping us on our way in the coal business.

Jan 1, 1964

By D. A. Stout

The Rouse Mine, belonging to the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, earlier known as the Santa Clara Mine, is located at Rouse, Huerfano County, Colorado. Operations at this property started about the year 1899, after the old Rouse mine had been drowned out by a large flow of water coming from the strata underlying the Cameron seam. The present new Rouse mine was opened by a slope on what is familiarly known as the Walsen seam in the Walsenburg district. This slope has an average grade of 12 per cent bearing approximately, south 45 degrees west, and having at the present time a total length of 6300 feet. This seam has an average thickness at that property of five and one-half feet; however, there are sections of the mine where the thickness is from seven to eight feet. The mine has been developed. since the time it was opened on what is known as the Room and Pillar system ; water level entries have been driven right and left off the slope, and in some cases the rooms are driven directly up the pitch; and in other cases entries have been driven with rooms turned on water level courses. The first flow of water of which we have ally record was encountered in 1901 in what was called the "Second West Entry." This flow, however, was small, and did not require the installation of any large pump unit. From 1901 up until 1909 the flow increased normally as the field was developed. In January, 1909, the first large inflow occurred, coming from a break in the seventh west entry, making a total flow at that time of about 500 gallons per minute. This necessitated putting in larger pumps, and the first pump to be installed of the centrifugal type was a 600 gallon Worthington. By the year 1911 the water had increased, due to additional development, until it was found necessary to install an additional 600 gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump. In December, 1912, a break occurred in the eighth west entry, between the fourth and sixth cross entries, making 2000 gallons per minute. This flow decreased after a period of three weeks some 500 gallons, but on account of the quantity of water then being handled at the mine, and in view of the fact that we needed some reserve pumping equipment to take care of these flows, and additional 600-gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump was installed in June, 1913. An the latter part of 1914 a 250 gallon Reese roturbo was installed to take care of the water, which was being made in the lower workings of the slope. We found after the installation of the centrifugal pumps that the water decreased to a certain degree in the uppermost workings. This led us to believe that the field was being drained, more or less, and the head reduced ; however, our ideas in regard to this were again upset in December, 1915, when we encountered a flow in room 6 off the first cross entry on the ninth east entry. This flow was not as large as previous flows had been, but made 200 gallons per minute.

Jan 1, 1921

[ ]

Jan 1, 1997