Search Documents

Jan 1, 1974

Jan 1, 1928

John P. Thomas, President. B. W. Snodgrass, Secretary-Treasurer. San Andrews, mine boss, Morley. Richard Bickerton, Tabasco. E. P. Bayles, superintendent, Cokedale. Clyde Campion, parting tender, Valdez. O. C. Cook, 406 East Seventh, Street, Trinidad. James Cameron, superintendent, Hastings. Charles Chambers, superintendent, ,Sopris. Arthur Dennison, Trinidad. Samuel Dean, mine inspector, Delagua. F. S. Dunlevy, assistant engineer, Hastings. L. R. Douglas, assistant engineer, care Danford & Sanderson, Trinidad. W. E. Danford, superintendent, Segundo. M. O. Danford, superintendent, Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co., Trinidad. John Dougherty, mine foreman, Morley. J. C. Davidson, timberman, Valdez. William Easton, fire boss, Valdez. George Fortune, electrician, Primero. D. J. Griffiths, chief mine inspector, Trinidad. J. E. Hanes, assistant engineer, Hastings. Joseph Haske, superintendent, Primero. O. C. Erwin, electrician, 714 Pine Street, Trinidad. R. J. Jinkins, superintendent, Morley. Thomas jolly, superintendent, Gray Creek. James Jamieson, assistant mine boss, Valdez. James Kilpatrick, fire boss, Tobasco. L. M.. Kuhns, first-aid miner, care Mine Safety Car No. 2, Trinidad. William B. Lloyd, 404 East Seventh Street, Trinidad. J. C. Lawrence, machinist, Starkville. R. A. McAllister, mine inspector, Trinidad.

Jan 1, 1913

Cautionary Note about Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements made by us in this presentation that are not historical facts or that relate to our future plans, expectations, events or performance are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Our actual results may differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the risks described under the heading ?Risk Factors? in the Prospectus Supplement. All forward-looking statements are qualified by these risks and uncertainties. We undertake no obligation to update the information contained in any forward-looking statements unless required by law. All statements made by us in this presentation are further qualified in all respects by the information disclosed in the Prospectus.

Jan 1, 2007

At the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, G. S. Rice, Chief Mining Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, announced the definition of a gassy mine. This definition has been awaited with much interest, especially by the Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. It applies to the whole area of all mines, any part of which is on the public domain of the United States. Consequently it will be of wide application in the western part of this country. The safety committee of the R. M. C. M. I. has been hopeful that the Institute would adopt this definition without exception as the codes of rules to be recommended at all mines in the Rocky Mountain area. The statement follows: "The U. S. Bureau of Mines believes that all coal mines are potentially gassy; but for purposes of administration in respect to prevention of explosions and fires, the Bureau recommends the following classification: "Class 1 coal mine-A practically non-gassy mine in which flammable gas in excess of 0.05 per cent cannot be found by systematic search. "Class 2. coal mine-A slightly gassy mine in which (a) flammable gas has been found, ? but in quantity less than two per cent in still air in any active or unsealed-abandoned workings; or (b) flammable gas can be found, but in quantity less than four per cent, in some place from which the ventilating current has been shut off for a period of one hour; or (c) flammable gas can be found,* but in quantity less than one-fourth per cent in a split** of the ventilating current; or (d) flamamble gas is found in quantity greater than' specified rate*** of not more than 25 cu. ft. per minute. "Class 3 coal mine- A gassy mine in which flammable gas is found in quantity greater than specified for a Class 22 coal mine. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING DECISION NO. 3 "(A) Flammable gas found in coal mines is, with rare exceptions, methane. In coal-mining fields where natural gas is found in lower geologic horizons by deep wells which pass through or nearby the coal mines, there have been rare instances of la leakage from the well. Natural gas is chiefly methane; that constituent almost always forms more than 85 per cent of the whole, but it usually contains ethane, propane and traces of butane also. Therefore if the latter gases are found in mine air it is an indication of leakage. The lower limit of explosibility of methane-air mixture when there is turbulence of five per cent and of natural-gas-air mixtures with about ten per cent ethane and associated hydro-carbon gases is 4.6 per cent. The limit therefore varies with the character of the mixture. " (B) To determine the proper classification of a coal mine, it is advisable that systematic testing and sampling be done at least three times in a period of not less than 72 hours. All tests and samples of the mine air, except one, must show an inflammable-gas content less than the maximum limit of the class to which the mine is assigned. In other words, a tolerance of one test or analysis may be permitted to provide for a mistake or a very exceptional occurrence. "(C) When a new mine is being opened in a coal field where existing mines are generally gassy, it is common sense to assume that similar conditions will be found in the new mine, and its development and equipment should be based upon the expectation that it will be assigned to Class 3."

Jan 1, 1926

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925

David Wolach RMCI PRESIDENT 2001-2002 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 98th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 2002 Breckenridge, Colorado

Jan 1, 2001

By Paul A. Lang

Jan 1, 2007

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

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1941

By J. M. Shafer

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1975

Jan 1, 1927

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1957

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Harold Levent., Manager Coal Activities, Cameron Engineers, Denver, Colorado. The first speaker was Dr. Joseph J. Yancik, Assistant Director-Mining, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington. D.C. Subject-"Coal Mining R&D Programs of the Bureau of Mines." (See index for printed text of Dr. Yancik's paper.) Joseph J. Yancik is Assistant Director - Mining for the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for the Bureau's research programs in mining. Principal programs are the coal and metal mining health and safety research, mining extraction and excavation, tunnelling, explosives, mined land reclamation, mine fires and mine waste disposal. He administers these programs through four research centers and through outside contracts and grants.

Jan 1, 1974

[ ]

Jan 1, 1996

By Kraig R. Naasz

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 2006