Search Documents

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

Jan 1, 1931

The nineteenth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute at Rock Springs, Wyoming, was called to order in conjunction with the Wyoming State Safety and First Aid Meet, at 2 p. m., Thursday, August 7, 1924, by President William Littlejohn of Castlegate, Utah. Meeting opened by invocation by Father Welsh. Address of Welcome by Mayor P. C. Bunning and key to city presented to President Littlejohn. Response to address, of welcome made by President Littlejohn. Minutes of the last regular meeting read and approved. Report of officers: Financial statement by Secretary-Treasurer Shubart, who stated that there was $1,225.68 in the treasury and requested that the report be referred to an auditing committee for examination and approval. Motion by Mr. Pryde that the report be referred to an auditing committee. Seconded by Mr. Robinson. Carried. A committee of three, consisting of Messrs. Murphy, McKeehan and Gibson, were appointed by President Littlejohn to examine the report, and approve it. As no time was found during the meeting, the Committee was instructed to report later by mail. Report of Standing Committees: Mr. Pryde stated that the report of the Safety Committee would he presented at the morning session, August 8th. Report of Special Committees: None. Unfinished business: President Littlejohn stated that some action should he taken on the interchanging of certificates in the four states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. A committee should probably be appointed from each of the states, and the matter left in their hands to try if possible to get their legislators to put some law into effect which will make the certificates in all these four states interchangeable. President Littlejohn also stated that the subject had been brought up, through correspondence, of changing the emblem of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, which is the old oil lamp, and that he had had a letter from Mr. C. M. Schloss, who stated that inasmuch as the old oil pit lamp was symbolic of mining it should be retained so that unless someone had any

Jan 1, 1924

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

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 R. A. Marshall

Much has been written by men connected with the coal mining industry, and mining laws have been enacted for the safety of the men employed in the mines, and for the protection of property connected therewith. It seems almost impossible for anyone to select a subject that has not already been read, discussed and put into effect, especially in the coal mines of Western America. There is, however, a subject of much interest to the mining public, and to which I have given a great deal of study and consideration, and which I believe will be received by this convention, and will be given due consideration in the future in applying it to the safety of the mine,- "Efficiency in Shot Firing." Beginning with 1865, and for a period of 28 years in the state of Colorado, the annual reports of the chief inspectors show that 1159 coal miners were killed in the following manner: Five hundred eighty-two by falls of rock and coal ; 517 by gas and dust explosions; 6o by careless handling of explosives and the shooting of coal by the, individual, miner. It is my firm belief that 75 per cent of these fatal accidents might have been avoided, if a safe and proper shot firing system had been installed, at each and every mine. This may sound unreasonable, but I believe that the blasting of coal by the individual miner, and the use of black powder, squibs and fuse has, in reality, caused the death of many miners, from shock after blasting, the shooting out 'of timbers, and working in powder smoke, which fatal accidents were attributed to falls of rock or coal. These conditions led the people of Colorado, through their representatives of the General Assembly of Colorado, to enact a new coal mining law, and in 1913 this law became effective, containing twelve sections devoted to the subject of Efficiency in the System of Shot Firing. During the period 1913 to 1920, the employment of a shot firer, the use of permissible. powder, and the electric hand battery has resulted in safer mines, safer miners and safer shot firers, and I believe every coal mine in the state should employ first-class, certified shot firers, use permissible powder and fire the shots with an electric hand battery. I believe where gas generates in dangerous quantities, which is generally determined by inspection of the mine, and the daily report, the shooting in. such a mine should be done by electric battery located outside of the mine. Where permissible powder is used, I have seen the shot firer start down the mine with a belt around his waist containing one hundred caps, a safety lamp to test for gas, and an open light to ignite the fuse. Would it not be much safer for the shot firer if he used the electric hand battery? In non-gaseous mines where black powder is used, I have. seen the miners carry fuse into the mine, and shot firers have been known to partly tamp the holes, which was

Jan 1, 1921

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, 1959

WILLIAM P BALAZ RMCMI PRESIDENT 1990-1991 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 87th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30, July 1 & 2, 1991 Keystone Resort, Colorado

Jan 1, 1990

Jan 1, 1953

By Sam Andrews

Mr. President, Officers and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: This is my first attempt to prepare and read a paper before your association. The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I understand, was formed for the purpose of increasing knowledge relating to coal mining in all its various branches by study, research and discussion. In writing my paper, I have tried to be as practical as I can, at the same time, present my arguments so that they can be easily understood. When I use the word science, I mean organized common sense. I humbly ask my hearers to be a little patient, while I read my paper, and be "to its faults a little blind, and to its virtues a trifle kind". Western Europe is said to be the cradle of the coal mining industry. We are told that the Ancient Britons were acquainted with the use of coal long before the Romans invaded and conquered their country. The Romans were never too proud to learn from the outer barbarians, and possibly acquired the precious secret from them: We are told that it was not until the 13th century, that the coal mining industry, assumed any noticeable importance in Britain, and on the Continent. In the year 1259 Henry the 3rd granted a charter to the freemen of New Castle on Tyne, allowing them to mine coal. For a long time it was used in the arts and manufactures only, wood continuing to be the common domestic fuel. As has been the case with almost every great benefit, the introduction of coal as a fuel was stoutly resisted at first, and we find its use prohibited in the city of London in the reign of Edward II, by Royal proclamation ; which was soon discovered to be injurious and foolish, and consequently withdrawn. It is interesting perhaps, to know how this Royal proclamation was brought about. A lady of the Royal household was riding in her coach one day through a village in which coal was burned as a fuel, and she suffered such a cough by inhaling the coal smoke that she decided to call a council of suffragetts, who ultimately decided that the burning of coal was injurious to their health and complexion. They drafted out a petition and presented it to the king, who speedily issued the order that no coal was to be burned in the city of London. The penalty for disobeying this order was death by hanging. We are informed of one poor man who continued to burn a lump of' coal on his fire in winter time; he was arrested, sent to prison and condemned to death; the judge in passing the sentence solemnly stating that if he was not allowed to get a fire that was hot enough in this world, he felt that he surely would be allowed one in the next.

Jan 1, 1921

MR. SHUBART: Mr. Miller's paper mentioned the two processes that seemed to be a success, the Smith process and the Piron process. I suppose the main difference is this, that Smith's process is to furnish domestic fuel and the by-products while the Piron process that Ford is installing is for fuel for power plants. I would like to ask Mr. Miller something about the commercial cost of the process. With the briquette you must make it cheap enough to sell. What are the commercial possibilities of Smith's briquette? MR. MILLER: It is pretty hard to say what the cost would be at this time, owing to the fact that slack has advanced double, or even more at the time I was in New York with the plant, but at that time it was costing $1.10 for the operation. You can add to that, of course, the cost of the coke. One dollar and ten cents was the entire cost of plant operation. It takes about one and one-half tons of coal to make a ton of briquettes. One dollar and ten cents takes care of all the material, cost, labor, handling, etc. Labor was much cheaper then. I would say it would cost about $2.20 now. The cost of coal is what you can buy it for on the market. I don't think, however, that the carbocoal process will ever meet with any great favor for the simple reason that it is really a prepared fancy fuel. It is going to be nice for people in offices where they want a grate or for families where they want a nice clean fuel. It leaves no stain on the fingers, no odor to it. It seems in carbonizing coal we change the carbon molecule. For instance, we are all familiar with the diamond. It is carbon, yet it requires a tremendous heat to burn a common little diamond. But you can set a piece of charcoal afire, which is also carbon, with a match. The molecular form has been changed in carbonizing coal, i. e., it is larger. Carbocoal will fire very readily, it can be started with a piece' of paper. I think the Piron process will be the process, i. e., to simply take out the tars and light oils, then fire direct-have the distillate plants right on the job. CHAIR: Can Mr. Shubart tell us something of the mechanical part of the Piron process? MR. SHUBART: The Piron process is of interest because Mr. Ford is taking it up. He has made so few mechanical mistakes it makes us feel that it is a success. Piron is a chemist of high accomplishment and reputation. The thing about the proces is its simplicity. Mr. Smith's is a very elaborate process, but Piron has gotten around all that. Piron feeds the raw coal in at about one-half inch mesh or smaller. He feeds it into a retort about 55 feet long, 16 feet wide over all. He has a hearth about 6 feet wide and the length of the retort. The base of the hearth that carries the coal is a conveyor, a flat cast iron conveyor, a very massive affair, very accurately made, so that there is no loss of coal. Between the upper and lower strands of the ' conveyor is a bath of molten lead which gives an accurate control of temperature. For best results he must have temperature of not under 800 F., not over 1,300 degrees F., about 1,100 or 1,200 F. seems to be ideal for getting greatest yield of oils and the best tars and other by-products. This lead bath has a system of flues running through it that

Jan 1, 1923

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

Jan 1, 1982

Jan 1, 1929

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1963

By L. C. Clare

In a meeting of this kind where everyone present is connected with or engaged in coal mining, and where each one is present with the set purpose of learning new thoughts or ideas, the subject of the saving of life by any method in the industry is a vitally interesting and important one. On the cost per ton basis, it mounts to a formidable figure especially so during these days of depression and stagnant, or no business. But entirely outside of the human side of the question, to lose lives would cost more than saving them. Your insurance under haphazard safety measures would mount, loss of time due to accidents would impair efficiency among employees and the breaking of the morale of the staff, due to criticism of lax methods would cost more than an efficient safety program. Taking it for granted that most of you are looking at the question from the viewpoint of a yearly or five-year cost sheet, and that at this time you are doing all that can be done without bringing a ruinous cost upon your companies, I can offer only one suggestion: Raise the quality of your safety, or lower the cost. In this meeting, there should be no question of standing still or retreating in the quality of safety, so I will amend the suggestion with "Raise the quality and lower the cost." We have learned that when the coal beds were forming, nature sealed them in with a strata of mud that the ages have turned to shale, sealing them effectively against the deteriorating influences of the air. Mudite is carrying out nature's plan of coal preservation to the inside of the coal mine. Text books teach us that a large proportion of the vegetation that forms our present coal beds grow on what might be termed mud, later falling and being buried practically where it grew by mud, then on being subjected to heat, pressure and time, was changed to coal. The mud being subjected to the same three forces forms our present shale stratas. Now if nature saw fit to use this solidified mud as a preservative through countless centuries, isn't it reasonable to expect that occasional coatings on the ribs and roofs of entries and rooms will aid materially in preserving our coal and coal dust? Nature took mud and formed it into shale; mudite takes the shale, reduces it into dust, adds water and makes a mud, applies it to the ribs, roofs and floors of the mine in a thin coating

Jan 1, 1925

By C. A. Allen

When the writers were asked to prepare a paper on this subject for this meeting of the Institute there was some question in our minds as to what to say that would be of interest to the members. You all know that Utah has some wonderful seams of good coal, on which have been opened some of the most modern mines in the United States, and that her coal operators have been putting forth many efforts to reduce losses due to accidents as well as disease. While I believe that the physical condition of Utah's mines is as good as in any other state we are not unaware of the fact that a great deal can still be done and we are always willing to frankly discuss the accident situation in the state. Dr. Murray has assembled some interesting figures showing the monetary loss due to accidents and disease which I will will proceed to give you to show the necessity of continued efforts in welfare work regardless of humane considerations.

Jan 1, 1922

By O .. G. Sharrer

Loading mechanically has of late become the most widely discussed subject in connection with coal mining and has even equalled. the discussion of safety measures as a topic of interest. The subject has been discussed in the various mining journals and by well. informed persons at the Mining Institutes, so it would appear; that all has been said that can be said until further experiments bring out new lines of discussion. It is, therefore, not the intention to present this article as a technical discussion of the subject of mechanical loading as a whole, but rather as a plain talk on machines with which the writer has had personal contact. In 1919, during the first period of post-war depression, a Pennsylvania coal company employing union labor became interested in the possibilities of mechanical loading with the hope of reducing their mining costs, which were and are yet too high to meet competition from the non-union fields of Somerset and Westmoreland counties. Of several loaders presented for their consideration the model of the Joy loader shown by Mr. Joseph F. Joy, seemed to hold the greatest possibilities, and after extended study, the management decided to invest in a machine of this type. A machine was built, which as far as the writer knows was the only one of its type ever put on the market. This machine arrived at one of the mines early in 1920 and was put to work immediately. It was a forerunner of the present 4-BU and 5-BU types, but differed from them very radically as to design. In general the machine consisted of the familiar Joy gathering arms and a short conveyor which discharged into a steel tank which held about four and one-half tons of coal. This tank was emptied by a second conveyor which placed the coal in the mine car. The object of this conveyor tank was to provide storage room while changing cars and to allow the machine to load on the entry while the room was short. This plan was very efficient and from our experience was worth retaining, but has been abandoned by the Joy Company on account of its making the machine unwieldy. The whole machine was mounted on caterpillar tractors which were driven by two 10-H.P. Westinghouse series wound motors, each having its own controller, the controllers being arranged in tandem so as to be operated by the same handle. This very ingenious scheme which is shown in Figure 4, was supposed to make it possible to steer the loader by the controllers. By swinging the handle one way both motors moved forward, by swinging the handle the other way both motors moved backwards and by twisting the handle as shown by arrows, one motor moved ahead and the other back, thus causing the machine to turn. This scheme proved a failure as the loader was too temperamental and erratic in its operation. After Mr. Joy, himself, narrowly escaped serious injury, this device was taken off and the controllers manipulated separately. This system never proved satisfactory and was abandoned' for

Jan 1, 1925

By David Griffiths

I am' not an orator and have never said a word in public during my thirty years' experience in the coal mines of Colorado; but, being requested to speak by our worthy chairman, and as I am deeply interested in the future welfare of this organization, I will make an effort to say a few words in behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal- Mining Institute, which we are about to organize. As I understand it, it is the object and intent of this organization not merely to assemble occasionally for the purpose of discussing various problems in coal-mining, and thus to obtain the best possible results in economic operations, but its especial duty will be to devise ways and means whereby accidents in coal mines will be minimized. Figuratively speaking, we are about to plant a tree in the State House of Colorado, and desire its roots and branches to extend over Wyoming on the north, New Mexico on the south, and Utah on the west. So we expect this tree to bear fruit over a vast area. .We must remember that the planting of a tree, even in good soil, is useless unless we cultivate, prune, and nurture its development. If we will not do so, the tree will not bear the desired fruit. So, in order to make the Rocky Mountain Institute a success, we must not only start it off in good shape, but we must keep on adding to its strength in various ways, so that it will become a known factor and a recognized power over this broad teritory. In other coal-mining states and countries of the world much has been accomplished through similar organizations to reduce loss of life among, men engaged in the production of coal, and there is no reason why our institute in the West should not be equally useful and attain the same results. There are many ways by which this organization can be made beneficial to the men engaged, in various capacities, in handling the "dusky diamond.' I will endeavor to confine my brief remarks to the necessity of a crusade of an educational nature among three classes of men that are directly and indirectly connected with coal mines. First-We need to educate ourselves. It is amazing how few of our number, holding positions of trust, and having charge of men in and around coal mines, are conversant with our brief mining laws and cognizant of our duties in enforcing them. Going down the line to our company men and miners, I think I can safely say that not over 5 per cent of them are in any way familiar with the statutes

Jan 1, 1913