Search Documents

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. Homer Hyatt, Safety Director, North American Coal Corporation, Western Division, Castle Gate, Utah. Mr. Hyatt introduced Mr. Richard F. Walker, Vice President, Engineer & Planning, Electric Department, Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Walker is a native of the State of Nebraska, a graduate of the University of Colorado with a BSEE degree in 1949. He has been associated with the Public Service Company of Colorado for almost twenty years and in the above capacity for the last one and one-half years. Mr. Walker?s subject was "Our New Plants and Coal. (See index for printed text of Mr. Walker's paper.) Mr. John F. O'Leary, Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. spoke on the ?High Cost of Economy.? Mr. O'Leary graduated from George Washington University in 1950 with a degree in Economics. In 1950, he joined the Bureau of Mines. In 1963 he was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mineral Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior. In 1967, he was appointed Chief, Bureau of Natural Gas, Federal Power Commission. In 1968, appointed Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.

Jan 1, 1969

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

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

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel, 919 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan, Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Anderson, Nephi W :Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo:]

Jan 1, 1961

By F. A. Young

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

Jan 1, 1923

Pictured on these pages are seven of the eight RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1993- 94 year followed by a brief profile. Seven of the eight winners were present as guests of the Institute at the June convention in Snowmass Village, Colorado to receive recognition at the Institute Awards Luncheon Monday, June 27, 1994. Due to another conflict. Jason T. Dale of Wyoming was unable to attend. Each state vice president sewed as the host for the collegiate winner. In addition to receiving a plaque from the Scholarship Chairman. Alan Czarnowsky, each winner receives $750 tuition credit for the coming academic year, as well as transportation, hotel lodging and meals at convention as guests of the Institute. Because this is a continuing award, the winners from the previous year will receive another $750 for tuition credit in their senior year if they have maintained good academic standing and are recommended by their university. A resident from each of the eight RMCMI member states is selected from among Board approved institutions. Criteria for these awards to be made in the spring annually is (1) That the award be made to a sophomore student and used as tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U.S. citizen and a resident of the member state. (3) That the recipient have good academic standing, be pursing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in Western coal as a possible career path. The scholarship program includes curricula other than those in the mining departments, but in engineering disciplines, such as geology, mineral processing and metallurgy. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his firm. Through annual donations of $100 or more, the Patrons of the Institute fund the scholarship program and the various vice presidents contribute the travel expenses to convention for these outstanding young collegiates. Donations to this worthwhile program may be made payable to RMCMI Scholarship and mailed to the RMCMI Office. 3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 324, Lakewood, CO 80215. Profiles of the 1994 Scholarship Winners follow. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Christy L. Brandt University of Arizona Tucson. Arizona Christy Brandt is the 1994 RMCMI scholarship winner from Arizona. She is majoring in Mining Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, but recently is considering switching to Environmental Engineering with emphasis on mining. She told the Scholarship Chairman that if she wasn't part of the solution, she was part of the problem. Christy has received numerous awards during school including being on the honor roll and university chapters of Society of Mining Engineers. Besides her academic activities, which includes being a member of Student Council, Christy is quite an athlete and enjoys basketball, softball, tennis, golf, and soccer. Last summer, she worked as a safety assistant/laborer for the Magma Copper Company. This summer, Christy is working in the safety department at Magma Copper Company's Pinto Valley Mine in Arizona. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Jason P. Markle Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colorado Jason Markle is the 1994 RMCMI

Jan 1, 1994

By N/A NA

Jan 1, 1967

By V. O. Murray

Safety, from the Latin word "Salvus" -Safe. 1. The condition or state of being safe; freedom from danger or hazard, exemption from hurt, injury, or loss. 2. Freedom from whatever exposes one to danger or from liability to cause, danger, or harm; safeness: hence, the quality of making safe or secure, or of giving confidence, justifying trust, insuring against harm or loss. (From Webster.) The meaning of the word "Safety" by Webster is very explicit, clear, and plain. It is not obscure or imperceptible. What man, woman or child is not familiar with this word? A mere word by itself, but indifference to its significance means the difference between life, death, permanent or partial disability, or injury. There is no question about a safety program being expensive. It is-it produces no commodity-but when properly organized and with a definite goal in view it will pay 'a dividend by increasing the efficiency of the human worker.

Jan 1, 1930

By Chris Curfman

Sustaining Business in a Rapidly Changing Environment Topics: ?Sustainability @ Caterpillar ?Workforce Management ?Regulatory Environment & the Reality of living in a Carbon Constrained World

Jan 1, 2008

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

PRESIDENT SHOTT: Gentlemen, the meeting will now come to order, please. Members of the Institute: It is with great pleasure and honor that we welcome you to the thirty-ninth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. I assure you that Mr. Krippner, the General Chairman, and his associates have an outstanding program in store for you, and trust it will be of much interest to the industry. I note by the program they have me slated for an opening address, but I am going to defer that, proceed with the remainder of the program, and endeavor to go on schedule and keep matters on schedule as outlined on our program. The first item on the program is the reading of the minutes of the thirty-eighth regular meeting by the Secretary. I might say that it has been customary in the past that we omit the reading of the minutes. If that is not agreeable, we will read them; otherwise, I would like for someone to make a motion that we dispense with the reading of the minutes, inasmuch as they are published in our annual report each year. What are your wishes?

Jan 1, 1941

By Scott Jones

New Mexico Coal Operations ?San Juan, La Plata, And Navajo Mines ?Three Sites 100% Owned By BHP Billiton ?San Juan And La Plata Mines Owned/Operated By San Juan Coal Co. Supplies Coal To San Juan Generating Station ?Navajo Mine Located On Navajo Nation Lands Supplies Coal To Four Corners Power Station

Jan 1, 2008

President Schloss called the third session of the fifty-eighth annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order at 9:30 a.m. and introduced James Westfield, Assistant Director, Health and Safety, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who presided over the session. First speaker of the session was S. L. Jewell, Vice President, Peabody Coal Company, St. Louis, Missouri, who spoke on "Our Three Main Routes From Here." (Biographical sketch of Mr. Jewell, see index.) (For the printed text of Mr. Jewell's paper see index.) Mr. Westfield introduced Marling J. Ankeny, Director, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who served as moderator on the panel, "How Do We Go From Here in Safety?"

Jan 1, 1962

By Arline Seeger

Overview ? Lime Basics ? NLA & Its Advocacy ? State of U.S. Lime Industry ? Present & Future ? Lime?s Use in Coal?Conversion Plant

Jan 1, 2006

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, 1989

By A. L. Jones

The subject assigned to me of "The Power" Problem of the Mine" is so broad that I have decided to confine myself to the question of the power supply itself, rather than the application of electricity throughout the property. We will look over certain economic aspects of the problem, particularly in the way it affects the mine manager or executive and his attitude toward the power plant. The accepted method of power application to the mine is by electric power, and the experience of each of you is that the job is never complete as you are always undertaking some further electrification which necessitates the stiffing up the power house to care for the additional load. The mine executive, then, is wrestling almost continuously with the problem of his power plant. Either it is overloaded and must be enlarged and rebuilt; or its operating costs are excessive; or it breaks down and limits coal output; or some one wants to sell new and improved machinery, until the manager almost hates the thought of such a restless part of his property. If he purchases power, every day new uses for it seems to be found. In many ways this unrest is due to short-sighted policy toward the problem, and the tendency when the problem of extension has to be met, to dispose of it in the cheapest way and without thought as to where the future is leading. The day when each opening had its own boiler plant, steam hoist, steam driven fans, steam pumps, steam loaders, etc., seems to be far behind us. The recognized method of power distribution today is by electric power, except for rather limited applications of compressed air; most of which is electrically compressed. During fifteen years contact with mines of Colorado and Wyoming the writer has seen nearly every mine power house double or triple in capacity or abandoned in favor of purchased power, worn. out and inefficient machinery thrown out, isolated boiler plants dropped, seam pumping at great depth changed to electric drive, all resulting in greatly reduced labor and fuel costs. Power costs, which in such isolated plants were considered normal, would be unthinkable today. One property where the main power supply was by compressed air from steam driven com¬pressors used under boilers 8.35 per cent of all the coal mined. The cost of power was 12 1/2 cents per ton of coal mined. Another property of four openings, each with its own boiler plant and usual equipment of hoists, pumps, etc., had a power cost of 10.3 cents for each ton mined; and these were days when you did not get very high prices for coal. Another property operating two mines mostly by steam used 11.1 per cent of the coal output under their own boilers and the power cost was 19.45 cents for each ton mined. Each of these properties is now electrified and power costs are from 3 to 4 cents per ton, and the fuel burned runs from 1 to 2 per cent of the output. With the broadening market and high prices for slack coal and the high prices for labor in boiler and engine rooms, the cost of steam is reaching a high figure, and efforts must be made to keep this down, by more efficient steam production and by utilizing this steam in better machinery which will increase the work done by each pound of steam. It must not be overlooked either, that the plant which is very wasteful of fuel is usually a pretty old one and one far from reliable. In a general way the more efficient the plant, the greater its reliability. Ample and reliable power supply means ability to get out coal when there is a market. The increasing use of purchased power is largely due to changing conditions which are tending constantly to push up the cost of power, unless the most efficient machinery is used and large scale production possible. The

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1979

By K. L. Marshall

A facetious title was purposely given this talk, so that a formal paper would not be expected. TWO or three days ago, while discussing with Mr. Dickinson some of the details of the dust explosion demonstrations we are planning for this coming Saturday, I remarked that we would like to have as many people as possible see some samples of 20 and 200 mesh dust, so they would more fully understand just what was causing the explosions. Mr. Dickinson requested that I bring samples and screens and in this informal manner, give you all a ".close-up" of coal dust which is considered in Explosion Hazard reports. While sampling mines, for road, rib, and roof dust, in connection with safety service and hazard reports which the Bureau of Mines Engineers make at the request of coal operators, I have often been assisted by under- ground mine officials or other men of many years experience and on almost every occasion, while we were carefully brushing the very fine dust from timbers or coal surfaces, they would make some remark such as: "never had noticed this kind of dust, didn't know it was here", or "well, that's the first time I really understood what all 'this dust talk was about." Such experience makes me believe that the much published terms, 20 mesh and 200 mesh are just numbers to the great majority of both miners and operators. We are now going to have lesson one in the primer of coal dust explosions and I want to say, in all sincerity that a complete course in the hazards of mining is deserving of a place in the curriculum of the best mining schools of this country. Sample No. 1 is fine coal and dust and is a fair sample of what can be found every where in rooms and entries of a mine, as it is too small to be gathered up with a shovel and is left in the ordinary mining at the faces and is spilled along the entries in haulage. In this you will see some quarter inch coal, much eighth and sixteenth inch coal, in fact those are the sizes I find many people have in mind when they are asked about the dust made in mining. Although the sizes mentioned are the ones which seem to almost entirely make up this sample, such is not the case, for from 10 to 20% of such a sample will usually pass this 20 mesh screen and in Sample No. 2 we have 20 mesh dust. Result of many tests, supports .the statement of the coal mining division of the Bureau, that it is quite probable that coal over 20 mesh does not take part in any but the most violent of explosions and that all dust under 20 mesh may take part in any explosion. The largest particles in this sample will not be over .03 inches in their largest dimension and a pound of dust to a foot of average heading is very easily found in most every mine I have visited and usually a great deal more can be readily gathered up. It was .found early that the finer the dust the more dangerous it was for a given coal. So for the early explosion tests conducted by the Bureau a commercial pulverizer was used and it turned out a 20 mesh dust of which about 75% would pass 200 mesh. Some men question whether the ordinary mining methods made such a dust and so doubted the explosibility of the dust in their own mines. The question was well taken, and hundreds of dust samples were taken by the field men of the Bureau to determine the kind of dust being made in all methods of mining and all classes of coal. The result of such sampling showed some coals. resisted breakage more than others and that actual mine road dust, through 20 mesh, would show from 10 to 20% through 200 mesh, and for actual rib and roof dust through 20 mesh, they would get from 20 to 40% of 200 mesh dust. In testing the

Jan 1, 1924

[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