Search Documents

By Kraig R. Naasz

Jan 1, 2008

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

[Mr. Jay Abbott Union Sply Co 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Mr. Ronald H. AchZlger Midwest Rbr 6 Sply Co 6404 E 39th Ave Denver, CO 80207 Mr. Randy Acre Dorchester Coal C 9350 E Arapahoe Rd Englewood, CO 80112 Mr. Dell H. Adams Kenerco Corp 5480 Swanton Dr Lexington, KY 4051 Mr. Robert S. Affleck Anderson Mavor (USA) Ltd RD #1 Box 140-Lake R Bradford Woods, PA 15015]

Jan 1, 1984

[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

Jan 1, 1941

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

Jan 1, 1924

By J. M. Shafer

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1971

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

Jan 1, 1950

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

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 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 James F. Howe

Modern civilization is centered around a small group of essential occupations, the three principal ones which are agriculture, mining and manufacturing. Agriculture might be called the most important of the three, as it has to do directly with the supply of food for the human race. Mining, however, is certainly next in importance, as it furnishes the supply of fuel and many of the raw materials used in manufacturing. Without mining, modern machinery and many industrial operations would be impossible. Mining takes advantage of the, natural resources in fuel and minerals that lie underneath the surface of mother earth, and while at times some of these metals are hard to find and mines come and go, mining must continue to increase. Mining is no longer a haphazard proposition but one calling for careful study and complete plans of operation for years to come. The shafts, power houses, rock dump crusher, concentrator, and other machinery must be located advantageously in order to enable owners to make a profit. Many tons of rock or mineral must be mined frequently to get one ton of concentrated metallic ore or metal itself. Economy in mining is just as essential as it is in manufacturing. The mining engineer of today is called upon to utilize every branch of engineering, and not only, is a wide: range of knowledge required, but ingenuity to meet the unusual conditions which are constantly arising from week to week. On account of the wide variety of information required by the mining engineer, some things with which he is in almost daily contact may be passed over with only a small amount of attention, provided everything is going well, in order that time and attention may be focused on what might be termed the more important features of mining operations. Because competition has become keener than ever, owing to overproduction at times of certain minerals, it becomes a matter of first, importance to understand as far as possible the factors which enter into the cost of production of any mineral which may be mined. In such times of overproduction, the high cost mine is forced to close down while the low cost mine may, if desired, be kept running constantly. In keeping a cost record, wire rope on account of its high first cost 19 coming into the lime light, and a comparison of records of one mine with another is now frequently made in order to see whether the rope service is satisfactory or not. Every rope maker, on the other hand, is interested in seeing that the rope which he produces gives the maximum possible return for the money invested. Modern mining owes much of its success to the use of wire rope for hoisting materials from beneath the surface of the ground. Deep mining would be impossible without the use of wire rope as a means of hoisting. A study, therefore, of rope problems in mining work and a discussion of the points which are beneficial to maximum life will enable the mining engineer, manager, or superintendent to keep his costs down to the minimum while at the same time he provides a suitable and sufficient safety factor for operations at all times. Mining might be defined as the extraction of coal, metallic ores, or minerals from below the surface of the ground. This definition does not cover what is known as, open pit operations or quarrying but covers the

Jan 1, 1922

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

By Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

By D. C. McKeehan

The use of electric power was introduced in this field in the year 1892. The initial installation being an engine-driven generator and one nine-ton haulage locomotive using 500-volts direct current. Reference to this locomotive appears in the issue of COAL AGE for February 24, 1921. For a large coal field, the conversion to electricity has been very complete, there being no compressed air machines in service and but one steam driven hoist, that at No. 1o mine and located within fifty feet of the present power plant boiler room. Two eight-ton haulage locomotives, installed in 1896 and still in use, justifies the service and the equipment. These mines used the pioneer types of electric cutting and drilling machines, the story of which is, no doubt, familiar to you. The extensive use of electric power began in 1900, when there was installed four 400 k.w., 500-volt direct current engine-driven generators. These were cross-compound machines and operated non-condensing. By 1910 the mines had developed main haulage entries of several miles in length and a working territory of about six square miles in area. The necessity of supplying adequate power at the working face required a local power supply from motor-generator sets in various parts of the mine to supplement the power furnished by the engine-driven generators. The power to these motor-generator sets was supplied by a 300 k.w. high pressure non-condensing turbo-generator delivering 2300 volts, 60 cycle, three-phase current. This marks the beginning of the use of alternating current for mining purposes. In 1913 new mines were being developed at Reliance, seven miles distant, and the plant was enlarged to accommodate a 750 k.w. low pressure, condensing turbine, utilizing the exhaust steam from the cross-compound engines and the 300 k.w. turbine. Transformers were installed for supplying Reliance with power at 13,200 volts. In the course of time the old engines began to dismantle themselves by throwing various pieces, such as cylinder heads, about the building, damaging walls and switchboards, and created a general feeling of unrest among those who had to do with power production. The limitations of the old engines that had given admirable service for ten years were recognized. The source of exhaust steam became questionable and in 1915, a 1000 k.w. high pressure condensing turbine was installed in order that a more general use could be made of motor-generator sets for the direct current supply. The plant at that time containing a 1000 k.w., a 750 k.w., and a 300 k.w., in alternating current generators, supplemented

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 1953

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

Jan 1, 1982