Search Documents

Jan 1, 1975

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 Edward Bottomley

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I tried to get Benedict Shubart to have some fellow-some big fellow with a big voice-to read this paper for me, but he said there was nothing doing; [ ] that I would have to read it myself. I will try and not take up too much of your time. It is a pretty big subject, Mechanical Loading, and it covers a good deal of ground. I have merely touched on the high spots, as it were. A great deal has been preached and written in the last year or so about mechanical loading, and I doubt if any other subject in the mining industry has been discussed so freely and as often in the last few years. It is not the intent of this paper to dwell on the merits or demerits of any [ ] particular type of loader, that is, to say what the writer thinks is the most efficient or most inefficient machine. There are several types of loaders on the market to-day that are proving very successful in many mining districts. Some of these, five or six years ago, seemed to be a miserable failure from every standpoint, mechanically

Jan 1, 1926

By T. C. Harvey

Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. J. M. Jennings, chairman of the General Committee on arrangements during the convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute here, I have endeavored to prepare a brief description of the Columbia Steel Corporation's tipple at Columbia, Utah, and its operations, but [ ] from the fact that you have already listened to, and have been interested I'm sure, in the description given by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Murphy, on tipple construction and operations, I am taking the liberty, with your permission, to embody in my paper a description of our haulage and ventilation systems at Columbia, which I hope will be, in a measure, also interesting to you. As many of you know, we are mining on a Multiple Panel System, which while comparatively new in Carbon County, is being used successfully in various mining districts of the United States. Mine The Columbia mine is situated about four miles south of Sunnyside, Utah, at an elevation of 6,760 feet at the portal or main entrance of mine. [ ] From this portal, the main air intake or solid rock tunnel, about 1,600 feet long, runs into the mountain in an easterly direction to an intersection of the coal vein on a grade of 0.5 of one per cent in favor of the loads. There this main entry divides and forms two main entries. These are run in parallel with 100-foot chain pillars between them and protected with 150-foot barrier pillars on each side, and run into the coal in a southerly direction on a 0.5 of one per cent grade in favor of the loads for a dis-

Jan 1, 1925

By A. W. Dickinson

Since the day when one of the most progressive of our flat-head for- bears used a pry pole to loosen large rocks to crash upon the head of his, enemy, thereafter making notes of his performance on tablets of stone, the arts of mechanicalization have developed and progressed to the benefit of mankind. In the early coal pits of England the crudest of tools were wielded in the most slavish of toil to win a very small amount of product. In our own country it is but a few years since coal was hewn by negro slaves in the mines of the southland. The past thirty years have brought the use of the mining machine, power drill and locomotive, and we now stand on the brink of the coal mining era that will change the toiler of the mines into a skilled mechanic and render far more safe the winning of the fuel necessary to the nation's need. The ingenuity of our citizens has made it imperative that coal be produced at a lesser cost. Vast supplies of fuel oil have been developed; enormous resources in water power are turning the wheels of many mills and, most commendable but distressing to the coa.1 producers, the high price of coal has resulted in efforts and accomplishment in fuel economies unheard of a short five years ago. The railroads of the United States alone in 1924 accomplished more hauling with $30,000,000 less in coal bills than in 1923. The loading of coal by machines has been under investigation and trial for some time past and in an effort to have its men informed of the practice of the eastern coal fields, The Union Pacific Coal Company sent the writer through a number of states to view as many operations as possible. Notes were taken of machines and processes seen and time was spent with engineers of the various coal companies; also with the United States Bureau of Mines Engineers, particularly Mr. Edwin H. Johnson, who devoted one year to the most careful study of the mechanical loading of coal. The writer wishes, at this time, to acknowledge the helpfulness of the information acquired through contact with Mr. Johnson.

Jan 1, 1925

Public perceptions about coal remain neutral to negative But gains are slowly being made as the public becomes more aware of coal as ?abundant, affordable, and increasingly clean?

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1966

By S. W. Farnham

Those who remember the years of patient effort and the slow results obtained in the first introduction of electrical coal cutters and locomotives will, I think, admit that mechanical loading of coal is unquestionably being established at a much more rapid rate than any previous application of machinery to reduce manual labor in mines. There are many operators who consider the progress of the loaders today as slow, but considering the number of years it took to thoroughly establish electrical coal cutters and locomotives, and comparing it with the short time that the mechanical loader has been on the market, and the results that have been obtained today, they will admit, I think, that the progress of the latter is much more rapid. It is about 35 years since the advent of the electrical coal cutter and electric locomotive. Their use has brought about these improved conditions, increased tonnage per mine and other features, which are of assistance to the installation of mechanical loaders. The management and the technical staff in practically all of the American mines are trained in the use of electrical machinery and understand its operation, care and maintenance. . There is frequently, a surplus of electrical power and wiring available to take care of the small requirements of the electrical loader. The mechanical loader, therefore, starts today with the ground prepared for it. Those manufacturing companies who have had years of experience in the design and construction of mining machinery, know in a large measure what to incorporate in their designs to make the parts of the new type of machine effectively strong and to operate with efficiency under the severe conditions encountered in mining service. All these advantages greatly assist the success of a new type of machine such as the mechanical loader. In spite of these advantages, however, there are bound to be some failures. All new types of loaders have to be developed. We hear of some that are a success and some that are set aside. The field of application of each type and its limitations first must be determined by actual operation. The earlier loaders had to be changed and improved in design as weaknesses developed. Not all of the new types of coal loaders have been built by mining machinery manufacturers of long experience, and the lack of experience in this line is responsible for some of the early failures. The coal mining company staffs and also those of the loader companies had to learn what the operating factors were that made mechanical loading a success. The difference in results obtained by loaders in different properties under similar physical conditions indicates that the mine management is a very large, if not the major factor, affecting the efficiency of mechanical loading. Many articles have been written on the question of loading. The subject has been quite fully discussed at recent coal meetings and in the technical press. It is not always as easy or simple a matter to form conclusions as may first appear as to one's own particular loading problem. Mechanical loading is a comparatively new art, and many companies while claiming that loaders are quite successful, do not have an accurate line on the actual saving they are affecting. Many of them have only a few of the factors taken into account in their costs. Many loaders have been generally bought without very careful consideration given to all details and except where extremely favorable conditions prevail, failure resulted. When contemplating the installation of mechanical loading, one naturally desires to select the type of loader that will, fit his mining conditions. The things

Jan 1, 1924

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 1935

By Christopher Blazek

Presentation Overview ?2005 Train Derailments ?BNSF Investigation and Remediation ?BNSF Test Program ?Test Results ?BNSF Dust Control Goals ?National Coal Transportation Study ?Comparison of Different Topper Agents ?What Constitutes a Topper Program

Jan 1, 2008

[Abbott, Jay Union Supply Co., 7458 So. Jackson St., Denver, Colo. 80122 Achziger, Ronald H Midwest Rubber & Supply Co., 6404 E. 39th Ave., Denver, Colo. 80207 Acre, Lee Dorchester-Colomine, 2944 Hwy 6 and 24, Grand Junction, Colo. 81501 Adams, Robert W Energy Fuels Corp., 3 Park Central, Suite 900, Denver, Colo. 80202 Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., Consol Plaza, 1800 Washington Rd., Pittsburgh, Pa. 15241 Adams, Douglas K General Electric Company, P.O. Box 2331, Denver, Colo. 80201 Adams, E. E Armco Steel Corp., Box 53, Parker, Colo. 80134 Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 26 Sedgwick Dr., Englewood, Colo. 80110 Albrecht, Wayne H North American Coal Corp., Kirkwood Office Tower, Bismarck, N.D. 58501 Albrechtsen, Ray H. Mountain States Resources Corp., 1399 So. 700 East, Suite 11, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Alke, R. J Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 55 West 5th Ave., Denver, Colo. 80204 Allen, Thomas S Construction Machinery, Inc., 6121 Clermont, Commerce City, Colo. 80022 Allison, Thomas W Gullick Dobson International, 603 Parkway View Dr., Pittsburgh, Pa. 15205 Allmendinger, James W Falkirk Mining Co., P.O. Box 731, Riverdale, N.D. 58565 Almarez, John Jeffrey Mfg. Div., Dresser Industries, 720 So. Colorado Blvd., Denver, Colo.80222 Althouse, John G Coteau Properties Co., 2400 Astronaut Dr., Bismarck, N.D. 58501 Amundson, Adolph L. Western Slope Carbon, University Club Bldg., Suite 2240, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Anderson, Andy Power Motive Corp., 5000 Vasquez Blvd., Denver, Colo. 80216 Anderson, Carl L Industrial Screen & Maint., Inc., 1680 Sherrelwood Dr., Denver, Colo. 80221 Anderson, Charles W. R. Stamler Corp., 600 Main Street, Millersburg, Ky. 40348 Anderson, Daven Energy Engineering, Inc., P.O. Box 33, River Forest, Ill. 60305 Anderson, Forrest S Anderson Mavor (U.S.A.) Ltd., 303 Progress St., Cranberry Ind. Park, Zelienople, Pa. 16063]

Jan 1, 1979

[Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Randy Acre Joy Mining Machinery 2569 Silver Oak Ct. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum P1-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84528-1420 Kent Adamson Solvay Minerals POB 1167 Green River, WY 82935]

Jan 1, 1999

By D. Harrington

My acquaintance with rock, dusting as a preventive of wide spread explosions in coal mines dates from the fall of 1914 and the spring, summer and fall of 19.1.5 when I had an opportunity to observe the staging (both before and after) of several of the explosions in the Experimental Mine at Pittsburgh and saw violent explosions stopped by rock dust, also saw violently explosive coal dust made insensitive by use of rock dust to ignition or to propagation or spreading of an explosion. From this work I became a convert to rock dusting though I had previously been a firm believer in watering methods and am yet a firm believer that watering, methods have a well defined place in promoting the health and safety of our coal miners. In 1916, while in the Bureau of Mines service, I made an underground study and a report to the Bureau on the first extensively rock dusted mine, in the United States, the Delagua Mine of the Victor American Fuel Company near Trinidad, Colorado, there being then some ten miles of entry in that mine which had been kept well rock-dusted for at' least four years The dust used was " adobe" or surface soil screened from sweepings of the dry surface wagon roads through a screen with one-eighth inch openings, the dust giving about 20% through 200 mesh and about, 10% of approximately 1/8-inch size. The material was collected during dry weather by contract at $1.00 per ton (sacked) and was accumulated in summer and stored for winter and spring use. The dust was scattered through haulage entries by hand or by an electrically operated blower and was held on shelves along the ribs or between and on timber caps with from 1/4-inch to 2-inch thickness of the rock dust. The cost of maintaining the 10 miles of entry well dusted was about $1,500.00 per year or $150.00 per mile per year. Total cost of 'the rock dusting over a four-year period was about $6,000.00, about 2,500 tons of dust being used and 2,000,000 tons of coal produced; the above cost included about 1,200 days labor dusting at $2.50 per day, 2,500 tons of rock dust at $1.00. per ton and miscellaneous labor, material, repairs, power cost, etc., amounting to about $500.00. The cost per ton of coal produced for keeping 10 miles of entry rock dusted being about 3/10c. In addition to the rock dusting, some sprinkling was done, chiefly in the interior of the mine, costing about 2/5c per ton; and due to spilling of coal and sifting of coal .dust through loose cars on the entry floors, the floors of haulage roads were kept sprinkled between and just outside-the rails. Total cost of sprinkling and rock dusting was about .7/10c per ton much less of course than the same work would now cost. Between January, 1916, and July, 1924, my duties in the Bureau of Mines allowed me, to follow up and make underground inspections and reports on more than 20 coal mine explosions and fires in a number of states of the union and in this work a large number of samples of road, rib, and other dusts were taken to ascertain the effect of moisture, roof and floor dirt, etc., upon the propagation or the stopping of the explosion; also a large part of my work was to obtain evidence pro and con as to influences affecting the disasters and very prominent among those influences were the occurrence or use of water, water drippers, or ponds, as well as of sand, roof or floor rock or dust on floor, ribs, etc. The Dolomite explosion near Birmingham, Alabama, in November, 1922, and the Dawson No. 1 Mine Explosion at Dawson, New Mexico, in February, 1923 (at both of which I made underground inspection and report) both starting on main intake haulage road and both in mines which had fairly elaborate watering systems, convinced me that at least as far as freezing can occur on main intake air courses which also act 2s main .haulage ways, rock dusting is likely to be much more dependable than sprinkling. In making up the report on the Dawson Explosion to the Bureau of Mines (copy of which also

Jan 1, 1925

The Wednesday morning session was called to order by President Lewis at 9:00 am, He called on Bob Wilson to conduct the business meeting. In the absence of any of the Auditing Committee, the treasurer's report, which had previously been examined by them was read. He asked for a motion of approval. It was made, granted and approved. The Resolution Committee was called on to make its report. Mr. Shirl McArthur read the following report: (1) "WHEREAS, the Pneumoconiosis or Black Lung provisions of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act which have been construed and administered largely as a welfare program rather than as just compensation for occupational disease has resulted in enormous expenditures and commitments from the Federal Treasury, WHEREAS, the imposition of the full cost of future welfare oriented black lung awards on coal operators without regard to workmen's compensation standards and without due process in granting benefits is grossly unfair and discriminatory to the coal operator and places an undue burden on the present cost of coal,

Jan 1, 1973

By C. A. Herbert

We all deplore the high accident rate of our coal mines, but when brought to task we immediately attempt to appease our conscience by calling attention to the high tonnage rate per fatality in American coal mines as compared to European mines, losing sight of the fact that the accident rate per hours of exposure has shown no improvement during the past twenty years. Measuring our accidents in terms of hours of exposure, not in terms of production, is the only correct method. Certainly it can be of only scant satisfaction to the miner to know that his chances of getting killed this year are as great, or perhaps greater, than last year, but the tonnage rate per fatality will have gone up. We cannot help asking ourselves why it is the other major industries, almost without exception, have made wonderful strides toward reducing accidents, while coal mining stands alone as the one major industry in which no improvement has been made. It certainly cannot be charged entirely to the increased use of machinery and the increased productivity per man employed, as the other industries likewise, or to an even greater extent, have increased the use of machinery and the production per man.

Jan 1, 1931

By V. O. Murray

Gentlemen: I'm glad to see the crowd that's here this morning, glad to renew acquaintances with many old friends, and if you'll look at the program you'll see a heading there which states that as President I have the honor and pleasure to be here to address the membership of this meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, this being the 49th regular meeting. The tentative schedule of this gathering lists on the program the "President's Address," and I want to assure you that this will not be an address or a lengthy speech. It's said that a good speaker is one who arises to the occasion and then promptly sits clown, so please be at ease for I intend to sit clown very soon. There are other men here who have spent time writing and preparing papers on subjects that are to come up for discussion at this meeting, which will be, I'm sure, more interesting than what I have to say this morning; so again I'll say, we'll get this part of the program under way promptly.

Jan 1, 1953

Jan 1, 1991

The 81 st Regular Meeting and convention was called to order by the President, Charles W. Margolf at 9:00 a.m. Monday, July l, 1985 in the Silverton Room of Tamarron, a resort hotel near Durango, Colorado. President Margolf welcomed the members and others in attendance to the convention and noted his theme of "Make It Happen!" He introduced those present of the 1985-86 Board of Directors and Officers who were elected by the Board of Directors at their Annual Meeting June 29. They were: Arthur K. Neill, President; Bernard Bernstrom, President-Elect; Loren V. Linville, Convention Liaison Officer; Vice Presidents Douglas J. Hammer of Colorado, C. Joe Presley of Montana, Alva L. Smith of New Mexico, Fred Wertz of North Dakota, Rex Berry of Utah and Thomas J. Lien of Wyoming; and Doris G. Finnie, Executive Secretary & Treasurer. He also introduced Ira. E. McKeever who was elected to serve as chairman of the Advisory Board by that group. Margolf mentioned that one three-year term as a Director would be voted upon at the annual business meeting which would be held Tuesday, July 2 at 1:30 p.m. in the Windom Peak Room and introduced James "Doug" Ingram, the nominee of the Nominating Committee. A convention update was made by the Conven-

Jan 1, 1985