Search Documents

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

Jan 1, 1924

By F. M. Van Tuyl

The oil industry had its inception in the United States in 1859 when the first oil well was drilled by Col. Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania. From, a production of 2000 barrels for that year there was a slow but steady increase, with some fluctuations, up to 1901 for which year the output was approximately 69,389,194 barrels. Since that time the production has increased with leaps and bounds due to the rapid rise of the automotive industry, the widening use of oil as a fuel under boilers and the development of the. Diesel engine. The production for 1921 is estimated to have been 469,639,000 barrels. During the same year more than 125 millions of barrels were imported from Mexico. The oil industry, including the production, transportation, refining and distribution of petroleum and its products, is now the third largest in the country. Present Condition of the Industry During and immediately after the war the demand for petroleum exceeded the domestic production plus the imports from Mexico with the result that our storage oil was heavily drawn upon. Prices for crude exceeded all previous levels in the history of the industry. Pennsylvania crude sold for $6.10 per barrel and Mid-Continent crude for $3.50. Such prices stimulated wildcatting greatly with the result that several important new oil pools were discovered. Then as production increased the depression came which caused a large falling off in consumption. Pennsylvania crude fell to $2.25 per barrel and Mid-Continent to $1.00. Large oil companies such as the Standard, Sinclair and Empire took advantage of the situation, erected additional storage tanks and bought up millions of barrels to hold until better prices returned. Prices have already improved owing to a better market, but the domestic production coupled with the Mexican importations is still in excess of the demand with the result that the surplus is being stored. At the close of the year 1921, the U. S. Geological Survey estimates that there were 183,890,000 barrels of crude in storage in this country, the largest stocks in the history of the industry, yet an amount sufficient to supply the country for only 119 days at the present rate of consumption. Price reductions are again anticipated in some quarters but in view of the probable falling off in the Mexican output in the near, future due to the rapid rate of exhaustion of several of the most important pools and in view of the expected increase in consumption of gasoline and kerosene during the spring and summer months it is more likely that the present price level will be maintained. Present Sources of Domestic Supply Seven major oil fields are recognized by the U. S. Geological Survey in the United States. These are the Appalachian, Lima-Indiana, Illinois, Mid-Continent, Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountain and California. Two of these, Mid-Continent and California, supply about seventy-five per cent of the present total domestic output

Jan 1, 1922

The 1936 meeting will be held in Salt Lake City, the exact date to be announced later. If you have any suggestions for the place or program send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1925

By P. F. Patterson

It is a well established fact that 60 per cent of all accidents in coal mines occur from falls of roof and coal at or in the proximity of the working face. Notwithstanding that this is well known, and has been frequently discussed by mining men, this seems to be the irreducible minimum. It is even said by those in a position to know that the percentage stated is increasing. With this, information before us it would seem that not enough attention is being given to close supervision at the working face, and until this is done we may expect to continue experiencing an increase in the accidents in this area. No workman generally feels that it is more important to finish loading a car of coal than to set a timber for protection, and many accidents happen from this source, not from a lack of knowledge of the dangerous conditions existing, but negligence in taking remedies necessary to remove the danger. It is true that nearly all state laws require the mine foreman or his assistant to visit each working face every day, but with the constantly changing conditions on account of the advance of the working faces, these daily visits may be entirely inadequate to discover possible dangers and prevent accidents. The obvious remedy then is closer and more systematic inspection and supervision of the working faces. Many accidents are caused in mines on account of not enough clearance between the rib and track or between timber and track. On all main haulage ways. there should be a space of at least 30 inches between the rib and track, or timber and track, and on all rooms not less than two feet should be left between the track and upright timbers.. A great deal has been said and written with regard to systematic timbering. We doubt very much the feasibility of adopting any standard of timbering that would be suitable for all roof conditions, and any such system in our opinion would not tend to cause a decrease in the number of accidents. The proper place to put up a prop, regardless of whether it conforms to any established system, is under a piece of loose roof. No habit is becoming more prevalent among miners and other mine workers than wearing gloves, principally flimsy canvas gloves, which afford no protection to the wearers and are the direct cause of many hand injuries. If gloves must be worn, and no doubt they will be as the habit has become well established, then they should be made from some heavy material and should fit the hands fairly snug.

Jan 1, 1923

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

Jan 1, 1982

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1926

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. George A. Nugent, Manager Mining Division, Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. The first speaker was Mr. Jack Huebler, Vice President Research, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Huebler joined IGT in 1961 as Director of IGT's contract research program, a major part of which is IGT's extensive coal gasification work. He is also an adjunct associate professor at Illinois Institute of Technology, teaching gas utilization. Before joining IGT, Mr. Huebler spent 20 years with Surface Combustion Corporation where he was chief research engineer. He developed, designed, and constructed a wide variety of heat processing equipment and the associated chemical processes and was involved in applied research in heat treating, gas chemistry, and gas-solids reactions. He has carried out extensive research on the heat treating of ferrous metals, oil gasification and gas combustion, and has made major contributions to the development, construction, and operation of large-scale industrial furnace equipment. He received B.S. degrees in 10th chemical engineering and mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He has 60 publications including 15 patents. He is also a world traveler in the field of engineering. Mr. Huebler's subject "Gasification of Western Coals." (See Index for printed text of Mr. Huebler's paper.)

Jan 1, 1972

By Eugene McAuliffe

The labor turn-over at coal mines has long been a fertile subject for parade by complaining coal operators, the question invariably occupying a place of prominence in the list of disabilities that tend to increase the cost of producing coal, adding likewise to the now startling number of accidents that occur in coal mines. This disability, however, is like the weather question, which some humorist once remarked of by saying, "The weather is something we all talk about, but nobody does anything to improve it." Endless compilations covering the shift of employment by coal mine labor have been made and published, and while the actual loss expressed in cents per ton in cost of coal produced has never been determined, the fact remains that such represents a substantial item, taking the mines of the country as a whole. Efficiency engineers who have made studies covering the cost of breaking in and training each new man employed in certain manufacturing industries, fix same as averaging not less than $100.00 per man, and when the character of mine employment is given due consideration, including its ever-present hazards, the difficulty of close personal super- vision of individual employes, and the, at times, almost impossible ability to transmit to men of many diverse nationalities understandable instructions, it is quite safe to say that the cost of securing and breaking in new men for underground mine work will fully equal that suffered by the factory managements. When we speak of mine labor turnover we must necessarily exclude the enforced shifting about of men who are laid off by the closure of mines due to accident or lack of market, con- fining ourselves to the turn-over occasioned by- (a) the dismissal of individual men or groups of men; (b) the voluntary resignation of the individual workman. It is these two methods of severance that the employer and employe alike suffer from; the item "Unclaimed Wages" carried in the accounts of every large coal company illustrative of the "quit this job, get another one" attitude of many workmen, who frequently, when leaving, fail to claim small sums due them, while others, in turn, leave a train of debts, large and small, behind. There is' ample evidence abroad to the effect that many

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1923

Guessing or Knowing! Which? Bumps and Squeezes. Vertical Cutting. Mine Fires. Membership List.

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1926

The 1942 meeting will be held in Salt Lake City, June 10,11, and 12, at the Hotel Utah. ... If you have any suggestions for the program, send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1986

The next meeting of the Institute will probably be in May, 1930. At the almost unanimous vote of the membership, there will be only one meeting a year, and that will be in May or June.

Jan 1, 1929

President Robert Wilson opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. He introduced William A. Bear, General Manager Bear Coal Company, Inc., Somerset, Colorado, who presided over the session. George Nugent, Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, presented a most interesting film "Montana Mine Reclamation." His biography follows: George Nugent first entered the coal business in 1943 when he developed Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.'s first coal mine-Big Horn Coal Company at Sheridan, Wyoming. Since that time he managed an expansion program for P.K.S. in mining that resulted in the development of two other producing mines - Rosebud Coal Sales Company at Hanna, Wyoming and Decker Coal Company at Decker, Montana, in which Pacific Power and Light is a partner. Applications are now pending for a third mine. Black Butte, a joint venture of P.K.S. and Rocky Mountain Energy Company, near Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Nugent is a Past President of the Wyoming Chapter, Association of General Con- tractors, Wyoming Mining Association and Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. He was President of Big Horn Coal Company and Rosebud Coal Sales Company as well as Manager of the Mining Division of Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. and Decker Coal Company when he retired Jan. 1, 1975.

Jan 1, 1976

By James J. Bryja

The production capabilities of today?s longwall systems have resulted in significant increases in retreat rates. This has in turn resulted in a heightened demand on panel development rates to assure that subsequent panels are completed in time to avoid a longwall production outage. As a means of reducing the pressure on the panel development activity a trend has developed towards the use of wider face lengths. The aim of using a wider face is to reduce the longwall retreat rate without sacrificing productivity and thereby reduce the pressure on increasing panel development rates. However, as the face width increases so too does the number of hydraulically powered roof supports that are required to control the longwall face roof. This increase in the number of units inherently translates into increases in the level of required maintenance relative to the multitude of mechanical and hydraulic components, and an increase in the time required for tear-down and installation time during the moves between panels. An obvious method of mitigating the maintenance and move-time impacts of wider faces is to employ the use of individual roof supports having a wider center-to-center spacing. This practice would serve to minimize the number of roof supports and maximize the time availability for longwall face production. With this target in mind a joint research project with DBT was initiated in 1998 to study the feasibility of using 2 m wide shields to replace the then standard 1.75 m wide shields. After four years of comprehensive work, the technical team from DBT and RAG American Coal completed the design and development of a prototype shield that would later become part of the world?s widest longwall face employing the use of shields having a spacing of +2 meters. The final spacing of the shields actually became 2.058m in order to match the standard pitch of the rack bar shearer haulage elements on the conveyor. In July 2002, the 2 m wide shields were successfully installed in LW-46 panel at RAG Cumberland mine in the U. S. The authors in this paper summarize the design considerations of and operational experiences with the world?s widest longwall face using +2 meter wide roof supports.

Jan 1, 2008