Search Documents

By Eugene McAuliffe

The subject of my few remarks addressed to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, "Guessing or Knowing! Which," may perhaps suggest but little to you here today. However, I am sure you will all agree with me when I say that in the conduct of a coal mining operation there should be no choice between guessing and knowing. The value of, and the results to be obtained from this Institute, its meetings and printed transactions, as well as those of other similar educational organizations, depend very largely on the mental attitude of those who constitute, through their pronouncements, the more active portion of the membership. Perhaps the most apt criticism that is now being made of the coal industry is that, to an extent possibly exceeding any other industry of similar magnitude and importance, it depends for its conduct altogether too much on "rule of thumb" and "tradition," rather than on proven practice and actual fact. The records of our coal mining association meetings bear expression of many conflicting opinions, the majority of which are sincerely put forth by those expressing same as representing the facts; the extremes expressed, however, frequently fix the question raised as one yet located in "no man's land." There are yet too many chances taken we are still "weighing pounds on railroad track scales" and measuring yards with the proverbial "bit of string." The actual expense of conducting any one of the several operations incident to the production of coal is rarely determined, and in many instances the general cost figures, prepared some weeks after the work is complete, are of that sweeping character that very little can be abstracted therefrom. Many coal companies are now making a daily cost sheet, showing the cost of labor and material in detail, as used in the several related operations,, and such is decidedly helpful, particularly to the mine superintendent and his foreman, who, without such, sail an uncharted sea; the auditor's belated monthly summary rarely ever seen by these men who are held responsible for the labor and material used. I have made reference to this situation as an accentuation of the fact that the coal industry contains more "serious minded, conscientious guessers" than does any other similar industry, although the annual cost of our product runs up well beyond the billion dollar mark, and what is more important, our industry is one that still continues to exact a heavy toll of human life. Now this brings me to the question of safety, the one question that should be, and which is, I know, uppermost in your minds. The coal mining world, engineering and operating, is now well sold on at least two things the theory of using permissible explosives and the elimination of the open light. Furthermore, the industry, particularly that portion which is located in Great Britain and the United States and Canada, are now planning vast extensions of the use of "rock" or "shale dust," both in the form of "dust barriers" and in "direct application" to entries and cross-cuts. This is well; however,, my study of past mine explosions has convinced me that the great majority of such had their very beginning in gas accumulations; frequently originating in restricted areas at the working face, in abandoned worked-out areas, or in some other certain place where ventilation is not, maintained as it should be; and that again leads me to the point where it can again be well said, that there is too much "rule of thumb," too much guessing now being done in regard to the volume of air required, and continuously furnished, in a given entry,, panel, room or area. Just to emphasize this situation, is it not a fact that the majority of mine inspectors express the ventilation conditions as measured by them, in terms of cubic feet per man employed, in each certain split, and does not the mining laws of many states yet demand a minimum of "100 or 150 cubic feet

Jan 1, 1924

MR. D. HARRINGTON (U. S. Bureau of Mines) : I happen to be a member of the Safety Committee, and the men on the Committee, I believe are the ones who will find the most fault with the report; but I am absolutely not in accord with the last recommendation. (The use of the "Self-Rescuer.") I do not think it safe. I do not think you are always sure you are going to have a sufficient amount of oxygen; in fact I know there are occasions in mines when there is not enough oxygen to make a man safe in a gas mask or self rescuer. At one mine fire, workers using open oil and carbide lights experienced quick reversal of air which extinguished the lights and one of the workers having carbide light was overcome. It took about 45 minutes hard work with Sylvester method of artificial respiration to restore him to consciousness. Fortunately these men were working close to fresh air but had they been far from fresh air base and relying upon self-rescuers or gas masks they would undoubtedly have perished. I was at a mine fire in Wyoming. A bunch of men were working and the air turned on them, and if they hadn't oxygen breathing mine rescuing apparatus I think there would have been at least a half dozen men killed they would have been killed before you could say, "Jack Robinson." PRESIDENT PRYDE: I would like to ask if the self-rescuers are nut approved by the Bureau of Mines? MR. HARRINGTON: They are not; absolutely not.* Furthermore, the Bureau of Mines' Engineers have opportunities to go around in mines, and in mine cars as much as anybody else in the country, and I have in mind but one who is in the slightest degree in favor of allowing self-rescuers to go in a mine. MR. BEVAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Safety Committee if it would be of any use to the fire boss traveling through the mine? PRESIDENT PRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I think we should finish up the discussion on the self-rescuer before we take up any other discussions.

Jan 1, 1924

(The following discussion took place on this screen lecture in the dark.) MR. SHUBART: Would you give us a little .explanation as to the operation of this machine and what you are doing with it? MR. TESCHER: There is a 20- horsepower motor, rheostat, crusher, and a fan mounted on one base plate and operating on one shaft. The fan is overhung on the shaft. The only bearings you have are the bearings on each side of the crusher and the motor hearings. On one side of the ma- chine there is an opening for feeding shale. The machine is operated at 1,200 revolution per minute and as the shale is pulverized, the fan automatically exhausts fine dust from the crusher from an opening in the top of the crusher. The machine pulverizes 3,000 pounds in eight hours, reducing the materid to one hundred mesh. The last ma- chine we put in has been operating continuously fifteen hours a day for the past sixty days, without repairs of any kind. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where is the machine in operation? MR. TESCHER. At the Royal mine. We have used ordinary mining ma- chine cable in local movements of the machines. This has enabled us to have twenty-two locations throughout the mines. The mine is highly gaesous, and the machines had to be placed on intake air. MR. SHUBSRT: What type of crusher do you use? MR. TESCHER. A No. 16 Universal, operating at 1,200 revolution per minute. M. SHURART: What material do you feed to it? MR. TESCHER: We have shale three-quarters of a mile from the mine. In the winter months we have been troubled with moisture. We build a kiln and get this shale and load it into the kiln for drying and then place it into a pit car and take it into the mine. The material must be dry. We have also used slate in the mine and have had good success. The slate at the mine is fairly hard. I presume, however, that the slate will probably carry a high silica content. MR. SHUBART: Mr. Harrington claims that silica does not do the harm, as was formerly supposed. MR. TESCHER: There is still a question as to whether it is harmful or not. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any of these machines in operation closer than Aguilar? MR. TESCHER: There is one at the Alamo mine. Mr. Quealy also purchased a couple of them for use at his Wyoming mines. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Tescher regarding his rock dusting machine while it is on the table for discussion? MR. DALRYMPLE, SR.: How many men does it take to operate it? MR. TESCHER: One man operates the machine. Sometimes we put the

Jan 1, 1925

CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Some of the members will want to question Mr. Farnham on some of the things he has brought tip, so we will throw the meeting open for discussion. I am quite sure Mr. Farnham will be willing and glad to answer any questions that may be put to him. MR. HOLMAN: I would like to ask Mr. Farnham a question in regard to the Duckbill: How wide a face will it operate without moving the bill? MR. FARNHAM: The Duckbill is a device that was developed in the Union Pacific Mine at Rock Springs, within the last few months, and it is shaped something like, a dustpan, with discharge throat in the rear. They made one seven feet wide and found it was too wide, and the one they are using now is between three and four feet in width. The front section of the conveyor, which attaches to the duckbill, meshes into it to form a sliding section, and the front end of the Duckbill is pushed by the upper segments. I saw one used in a room twenty-four feet wide, and they drew it back after they cleaned out one room and pushed it forward again. MR. HOLMAN: You have no arrangement other than ratchet work? MR. FARNHAM: The ratchet is for forward working and back; the sections are made 12 or 13 feet long, and the stroke of the conveyor automatically works the ratchet; they can ratchet it back; it is a hand device. MR. HOLMAN: They just swing the end of the conveyor across the face to pick up the loose coal? MR. FARNHAM: Yes; they are also planning to use it endwise along the panel face, that and the room work both are quite new in their application, and I do not think the Union Pacific is giving out any results as yet, because the system has not been in use long. MR. HOLMAN: We are planning on putting one in very shortly. MR. HALL: I understand they can swing it over 30 degrees one way or the other, and it goes the same way easily because of the continual jar of the back and forward motion on a 60-degree swing. SECRETARY SHUBART: Take on a comparatively long conveyor, you can get quite a sweep, a large part of the circle. The Duckbill could command quite a large range. For a 12-foot entry, take a four-foot wide advance through the middle of the shot coal, with a 12-foot advance, ratchet back, swing the Duckbill to the rib and repeat; but I do not think they could get as much as 60 degree. on the end of the Duckbill without curving further back. The conveyor is light and not normally set on any permanent foundation. I saw one of Mr. McCarty's first machines, a rather rudimentary one, clean tip a 12-trot entry, 21 tons of coal, in 16 minutes, three men at the face and one at the loading end. MR. FARNHAM: The average time to clean the entries is about an hour-to clean up good-it wouldn't take but a short time; that is why they get this record of several cuts a shift. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Farnham? MR. HOLMAN: We were discussing this entry driving in regard to the entry loader; an entry loader in advance work, just what you have to do to place the jackbars with the sheave-blocks? Do you dig along the ribs after the coal is shot or do you have any other scheme that could be worked out to a good advantage? MR. FARNHAM: This record is a report I have just received from our Chicago office, without the full details, which I have written for. I am sorry I cannot give you the details. This was an Indiana or Pennsylvania mine, near Pocahontas, not the one where they had an accident. I assume they set the jacks ahead and swung and dumped the coal partly out with a scoop and partly by hand, but the application for that for entry driving is entirely new. The reports stated that they anticipated using that as a standard method of entry driving in the future. I will be glad to see that you get a copy of it when I get the report completed. MR. MONAY: Mr. Shubart, did you say they loaded 12 tons in 16 minutes? SECRETARY SHUBART: Twenty-one tons. MR. MONAY: How long did it take to change the machinery out of there

Jan 1, 1926

By Joseph Harrington

It is sufficiently correct to say that domestic solid fuel is universally hand fired and it is almost as correct to state that a very large proportion of hand-fired domestic fires are extremely inefficient and smoky. This is particularly true with raw bituminous coal for the fuel. The smokeless and efficient firing of domestic coal affords one of the most difficult problems confronting the combustion engineer. This is due to the universally constricted combustion space in the domestic furnace, the complete ignorance regarding the laws of combustion on the part of the average person, and the fact that the laws of efficient combustion are almost completely nullified under these conditions. It is well to familiarize ones self with these laws. These are: 1. The gradual introduction of the fuel to the furnace. 2. The admission and mixing of the right quantity of air with the coal gases. 3. A temperature high enough to permit complete combustion, and 4. A furnace space of volume sufficient to permit of the combustion gases and the oxygen getting together within the confines of the furnace. Even a casual inspection of the domestic heater will show that none of these essential things are present in proper degree, and this is the reason why the problem of domestic firing presents such difficulties. I have analyzed these conditions in a paper published by the Black Diamond, and which has already had wide distribution, so that I will not repeat the rather lengthy discussion in this paper. A survey of the entire field indicates very clearly that a reversal of existing methods and equipment must be had before any real improvement can be expected. It is my firm belief that in this instance above all others it is necessary to build the efficiency and smokelessness into the equipment in such a manner that its performance will be entirely independent of both skill and interest on the part of the operative. To attempt to educate every man, woman and child who periodically throws coal into a domestic furnace would be literally impossible. Much can be done, however, if we could teach the householder the simple essentials of alternate firing, which I have explained at length in the above mentioned paper. This would go a long way toward making the domestic furnace problem more satisfactory, as well as efficient and smokeless. Many will argue, and with good reason, that the domestic fuel should be prepared coke and with this I agree up to the limit imposed by the practical considerations of quantity production, price and the possibility of marketing the by-products. It will be obvious that if enough raw coal should be processed to provide all of the required domestic fuel that the amount of by-products recovered during the coking process would be so great that there would be little or no market at any price which would justify the manufacture of coke. If the by-products were wasted they would not only be a tremendous economic loss, but the price charged for the coke would probably be so high that the market would be limited, and this would defeat the very idea of the whole thing. Much can be done, however, in advancing the use of coke, but I believe that much more extensive and careful experimentization should be had in order to determine the right size and quality of coke for the various domestic furnaces. If coke were to be developed for extensive domestic consumption it is more than probable that the coking process should and could be stopped at a point where the volatile content of the coke would be sufficiently high to permit of prompt ignition and combustion in low draft installations. If the volatile content were from five to ten per cent a very different kind of coke would be produced from that which is now produced with perhaps one per cent of volatile. A skillful manipulation of this feature would make coke adaptable and satis-

Jan 1, 1925

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

Jan 1, 1982

By J. C. Rae

A Japanese mining engineer was given a year's leave of absence by his company and dispatched on a tour of inspection of all the principal coal mining regions of the world. He visited the New Castle region of England, Wales, Scotland, France, Germany and Alsatian mines, the underseas col¬lieries at Nova Scotia and Vancouver, and our own important fields of Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. You are probably surprised to know that after seeing all these, he pronounced the Gebo mine of the Owl Creek Coal Company as the most interesting operation he had seen. The Gebo Mine is located about three miles west of Kirby on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad in the Big Horn Basin region of Wyoming, 500 miles north of Denver and 200 miles south of Billings, Montana. The mine is working on a coal bed five or six to eleven or twelve feet' thick, dipping 22 to 23 degrees toward the northeast. The coal occurs in what is called the Eagle formation; and is found between two massive sandstones from 25 to 65 feet thick, which, weathering into bold', gray-colored cliffs, serves as a guide to the location of the coal bed. The deepest workings have an overburden of 800 feet. Cleavage planes of the coal extend at an angle of 45 degres to the pitch, and perpendicular to roof and floor. The coal itself is generally clean and not difficult to cut. It ignites readily from spontaneous combustion, however, which circumstance makes an ever-present fire hazard which must be carefully watched and guarded against. The coal is classed as sub-bituminous with analysis about as follows: Moisture 17% Volatile Matter 33% Fixed Carbon 46% Ash 4% Sulphur, about ½ % B. t. u. value a trifle under 11,000. It is known as Owl Creek coal, is one of the best domestic and steam fuels in the West, and is very popular in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, South Dakota and Nebraska. While the coal slacks somewhat rapidly when exposed to the weather, it stores readily for months if placed under cover. On account of the somewhat isolated position of the mine as regards manufacturing establishments, there was a decided difficulty in disposing of slack, especially during the early years of the mine (1907 to 1914), and approximately 10 per cent of the entire product had to be wasted as slack during those years. This difficulty has been largely overcome since 1914, due partly to growth of manufacturing establishments in tributary territory, and also to enlarged transportation facilities. Also largely due to its isolated position, the mine has been compelled to use an extremely large proportion of box cars, much over 50 per cent of the product (in some years 75 per cent) being shipped in box cars, which, of course, entails extensive loading equipment and increases cost of loading. The output of the Gebo Mine for 1920 was 348,000 tons, for 1921, 273,000 tons; the rate of production during the year 1922 was over 1,700 tons daily, and 2,000 tons daily in January, 1923. The mine was developed by driving three openings straight down the pitch, the main slope being 12 to 14 feet wide and 3,000 feet long. A little distance from the surface a pair of level entries were turned right and left, known as the first East and first West. From these, rooms were driven up the pitch and chute mining attempted with only indifferent success: The failure of this rise-room method of mining was attributable to several

Jan 1, 1923

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Dyer's paper. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. NORMAN: I would like to ask the gentleman what is the distance between your crosscuts for the ventilation of rooms and entries in the state of Utah?

Jan 1, 1925

By John Bevan

In a discussion of the personal dangers that may arise from mine gases, it is necessary to take into consideration the gases which may result from an underground fire, or a fire in or about the downcast shaft, and the methods of avoiding or minimizing the danger arising therefrom. In all cases of the combustion of carbonaceous material such as coals and timber, carbon dioxide and water vapor are formed. In cases where the air supply is limited, some carbon monoxide is produced, the quantity varying with the readiness with which the oxygen from the air can get into intimate contact with the consuming carbon; in addition to these products there may be produced large volumes of irritating fumes consisting of unconsumed vapors' distilled from the burning material. Apart from the physical distress that may be caused by the irritant action of the fumes, the chief danger to life underground arising from a fire in or about the downcast shaft or intake airways is due to the carbon monoxide which the smoke is almost certain to contain. The physiological effects of this gas have already been discussed in mining papers and ref¬erence should be made to this. The prevention of fires at the surface near to the mouth of the downcast shaft, or in the shaft itself, or at the bottom of the shaft, usually lies outside the duties of the fireboss. An outbreak of fire at such places would, however, immediately foul the air current passing into the mine, and, assuming the men were in the mine, create a situation demanding urgent attention of the fireboss. As a rule, each case of fire creates its own problems, but in all cases the guiding principle should be to restrict the poison-laden 'air to the smallest part of the mine that is practicable, by opening separation doors, or breaking down selected stoppings at the most accessible points near the seat of the fire, so that the gases and smoke may pass directly into the return and so to surface. In the case of a shaft fire it will have the effect of fouling both shafts and in the case of a fire in an intake airway, both roadways leading to the shafts. It requires the use of some judgment. Therefore, in circumstances as to whether men inside the mine should attempt to escape to the shafts or should remain in the mine, and attempt to protect themselves from the poisonous air by suitably short circuiting the air-current and retiring from the main air-ways. In order to make such restraint easier, it is very desirable that all mines should be equipped with telephone communication from all sections of the mine to the surface so that men in the mine may be informed of what is being done at the surface to secure their safety, or instructed as to what they themselves should do. In cases of fire in or about the shafts, the question of the reversal of the air-current will probably arise. Should this be decided on by the management at the surface, the fireboss in the mine may have to give some attention to the effects which this action will have on the circulation of the

Jan 1, 1922

The 77th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Marriott's Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Loren V. Linville, District Sales Manager. Industrial Products Division. Uniroyal. Inc., Denver. Colorado, called the meeting to order. He introduced President, Edward F. Ziolkowski, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Energy Development Company, Hanna. Wyoming. A biographical sketch follows: Ed Ziolkowski is a 1953 graduate from the Colorado School of Mines with a degree in Engineer of Mines. His mining career began with Pickands Mathers Company in Gogibic Iron Range in Northern Wisconsin and Michigan. In 1961 he joined Texas Gulf Sulphur Company as Shaft Mining Engineer for their Cane Creek Potash Project near Moab, Utah. After serving as General Mine Foreman. Mine Superintendent and General Superintendent at Cane Creek, he was transferred in 1969 to Green River. Wyoming as Project Manager of Texas Gulf Black's Fork Trona Development. In 1971 he joined Allied Chemical Green River Works, as Resident Manager. In 1972 he joined Energy Development Company, an Iowa Public Service Company Subsidiary, as General Manager of their Coal Development. He currently is Senior Vice President and General Manager of Energy Development Company, and serves on their Board of Directors as well as the Boards of several other subsidiaries. This past April he was elected to Iowa Public Service Company's Board of Directors. Ed, his lovely wife Pat and children live in Hanna, Wyoming. He has been a member of the RMCMI since 1973. Is a staunch supporter of his community and the mining industry.

Jan 1, 1981

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Is there any member that has any question to ask Mr. McCleary on the subject? MR. TESCHER: What do you figure it costs to do this? MR. McCLEARY: Between one and a half and one and three-quarters cents per kilowatt hour. MR. TESCHER: That includes all charges? MR. McCLEARY: All charges, fuel and labor. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Mr. McCleary, you were talking about a ten-inch top on the cars. Don't you find there is considerable spillage when raising or lowering the cars? MR. McCLEARY : Not after the men get accustomed to loading cars properly; at first, they just loaded it on in any old way, but wall it onto the cars solidly after a few days at the mine. I do not think we have that condition now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Did I understand from the paper there that the rock dust you are using contains 90 per cent silica? MR. McCLEARY: Twenty; less than twenty. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I got that figure wrong. Are there any other questions to ask? MR. SCHLOSS: I would like to know what kind of machinery Mr. McCleary is using for rock dusting and are they rock dusting the rooms, or not? MR. McCLEARY: We have only recently started rock dusting, and the machine that we are using is Mr. Tescher's machine. We start in at the face of the main entry and move against the air current rock dusting every room and the entry every 50 feet. Every 50 feet, we stop the machine fifteen or twenty minutes at that point and rock dust up in the room and around the entry at that point. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Do you do any water sprinkling at the faces-at the working face? MR. McCLEARY: Yes, sir, every working face is sprinkled every day, and at least every two days at all points in the mine. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Does it affect the rock dust in any way? MR. McCLEARY: That was true before we started rock dusting. The faces only are sprinkled now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where you stop to sprinkle with water, you do not figure on rock dusting? MR. McCLEARY: I will just change that around. Where we do rock dusting, we do not expect to sprinkle. Where the faces of the coal are fresh, from day to day, that is where the sprinkling will be clone. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: That is the fresh faces? MR. McCLEARY: Yes. I might add right here, I believe Mr. Tescher made the statement that cross-cuts up an 8 per cent pitch were the steepest that

Jan 1, 1925

By Graham Bright

Up until a few years ago most of the electrical equipment used in the mines of this country was developed for industrial purposes and was adapted for use in mines by slight modifications. It became apparent, however, that mining conditions differed widely from most industrial applications and it became necessary to design and develop apparatus, particularly suited for use under mining conditions. Most of the electrical apparatus used in mines today, however, does not owe its success entirely to mining development, but in many cases developments in other branches have been taken and improved upon and modified to meet mining conditions. Power Plant: In the earlier days the power plant for the production of electric power usually consisted of fairly small belt driven direct current generators operated from reciprocating non-condensing steam engines. Today where possible the mines purchase power from central stations and where not possible it is ususally produced from turbine driven plants using non-condensing turbines for the smaller plants and condensing turbines for the larger plants. The bad water conditions at many of the coal mines in this country is, responsible in a large measure for the high cost of upkeep and repairs in isolated power plants. This feature with the type of labor available makes it difficult to operate an isolated plant condensing except in the larger mines where water conditions are good and the apparatus can be taken care of. The geared turbine is a particularly simple and rugged piece of apparatus and requires very little attention over long periods of time. Hoists: The first electric hoists to be installed used various types of motors designed for railway or industrial purposes, and the control furnished was far from satisfactory. Today most of the mine hoist motors are of the alternating current type, especially designed for hoisting service. The control for motors of 200 H. P. or over is usually of the magnetic of liquid rheostat type, and as built today will operate over fairly long periods with a very moderate cost of up-keep. Hoists of 1000 H. P. or larger are usually of the direct current type using field control and receiving power from a flywheel or synchronous M. G. set. Hoists of this type have made remarkable records in regard to continuity of operation and low cost of up-keep. Where high speed operation is desired in either coal or metal mines, the D. C. equipment using field control and a separate M. G. set to supply power to the hoist motor is not only the safest and most economical but in many cases is the only type of equipment capable of satisfactorily obtaining the output required. A number of improvements have been brought out with the field control scheme in connection with the acceleration, retardation, overfeed and overwind of the hoist. With these new developments the hoist operator can no longer abuse the hoist by improper manipulation of the control handle. Until a few years ago the matter of safety devices was not given much consideration when installing hoisting equipment. At the present time the safety devices are considered one of the most important items in connection

Jan 1, 1922

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 Charles Gottschalk

Some time after my arrival in Rock Springs to fill a short engagement with The Union Pacific Coal Company, Mr. Dickinson informed me that he had placed me on the program for a paper entitled "Mechanical Loading in Indiana." Since development of mechanical loading operations on a genuine coal producing basis for that section began near Oakland City, Indiana, and rapidly spread over Southern Indiana, Western Kentucky and Southern Illinois simultaneously, the results referred to are in many ways common to all three states. Prior to December, 1922, several attempts at mechanical loading had been registered, notably among which were installations of the Jeffry Entry Driver, and the Meyers-Whaley loader. The object of most of these earlier installations was quick development rather than lower production costs in face loading. In this measure it is claimed the machines were at least partially satisfactory. Three items which seemed to delay rapid progress in the adoption of either machine were, excessive first cost, height of coal seam necessary, and timidity of the operator relative to the labor situation which might develop. When the Joy machine was put on the market in the form of the 4-B.U., with a clearance overall which would perform in coal slightly under five feet in height, and at a cost price of less than one-half that of other machines being sold, many operators were at once ready to take a chance along with the manufacturer. This desire was accentuated by the difficulty to operate coal mines at all at prevailing production costs. This condition also made the coal miner more receptive to machinery which would give added employment to the field. At the convention held in Cincinnati during May, Mr. .Joy stated that about 200 of his machines were in operation at that time. Mr. Whaley said that about 40 of his were in use in coal mines. It is probable that of the above sum 75 machines were installed in Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky. Since that time, possibly 50 more machines of later design have been added. Like many of our troubles, those which seemed most difficult to overcome, proved in the end to have been least of all, and in this case the sup¬posed resistance which labor would advance has been more or less imaginary. In Illinois and Indiana a scale of wages is being accepted which is consistent with average earnings of machine men. The fact that a large number of coal operators want and are buying more loading machines has encouraged mining machinery manufcturers on every hand to devote renewed vigor to the cause and it is generally understood that new types and models are being developed both in factories and mines with the coal industry eager always to see the latest development. I understand that at present the Goodman, the Jeffry, and the Sullivan machinery companies are each offering new designs to meet Indiana and Illinois requirements. It is not strange that with so many installations many were made as a result of an impulse to ride the band wagon without any serious attempt to study the results or draw any conclusions from the experiences of others with loading machinery.

Jan 1, 1924

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 I. M. Charles

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: At the request of our Secretary, Mr. Shubart, I am pleased to present the following brief discussion of the Alamo Washery. In order to insure an excellent and uniform preparation of nut coal, the Alamo Coal Company erected last year a modern washery at a cost of about $50,000, in which, since the completion last December, all of the nut coal shipped from the Alamo Mine, has been washed. In part of the workings of the Alamo Mine, the coal is overlaid by a lenticular strata of slate, which invariably falls when the coal is shot down and breaks for the most part into fragments of such size as pass through three-inch round perforations, and are retained on plates having one and a fourth inch round holes with the nut coal. This "draw slate" comprises the principal impurity in the Alamo coal, and to remove it, some bone and a few small fragments of sandstone from the roof and floor, the washery was designed and erected. The few impurities contained in the lamp are readily re-

Jan 1, 1926

The 65th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President Joe T. Taylor, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Palo Alto, California. Manager of the Stanley Hotel, who welcomed the guests to the Stanley. After a few remarks, he introduced Bob Dean, for- mer Manager of the Stanley Hotel and again associated with the Stanley, who also made a welcoming talk as Mr. Dean has hosted the Institute at the Colorado Hotel in Glenwood Springs and in Estes Park. Mr. Taylor introduced President Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Stan was raised in the machinery end of the coal industry following the footsteps of his Dad who was one of the founders of the RMCMI in 1912. And following his Dad's years of service to the Institute, 12 of them as Secretary, Stan has been active as Chairman of the Hotel & Registration Committee for 16 years, and, prior to his election as President, was General Chair- man for two years He is a graduate of the University of Colorado with a degree in mechanical engineering. He served our country in World War II and retired as a Colonel, Army Ordnance, after 43 years in the Reserve. He is a Trustee of National Jewish Hospital and was their President for 3 years. He has been active in many Military and professional societies, and in civic projects. I give you our President, Stan Shubart, for his remarks.

Jan 1, 1969

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky. Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 3, 1952, Howard B. Crandell, President, presiding. PRESIDENT CRANDELL: Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order, and I would like to introduce to you your Chairman of this meeting, Mr. John B. Hughes, General Manager of the Union" Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs... (Applause) CHAIRMAN HUGHES: From the activities around last night, I supposed there would be quite a few that would be unable to attend this morning. I am sorry there are not more here because I am sure we have some interesting papers. First on the program this morning is, The Effect of Continuous Mining on Today's. Coal Industry by Mr. William Wearly, Vice President of the Joy Manufacturing Company. Mr. Wearly: (Applause)

Jan 1, 1952

By M .. K. Stewart

(Here follows descriptive movie.) CHAIRMAN KNOX: Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart, for this wonderful paper and picture. We are indebted to you. It certainly is the most interesting thing I have ever seen in connection with wire rope, except paying for it. I think there are a lot of questions that could be asked to bring out some points that we are not generally understanding of. Are there any questions at this time? I know Mr. Stewart will be glad to answer them. Come up to the front, Mr. Stewart. MR. STEWART: That's all right, thanks. CHAIRMAN KNOX: If there are any questions, let us have them. (No response.) Well, we will pass on to the next paper. CHAIRMAN KNOX: Our next paper will be "Self-Preservation, with Some Comments on Mechanical Loading," by Benedict Shubart and Charles Schloss.

Jan 1, 1935

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