Search Documents

SECRETARY SHUBART: This letter will not surprise you. (Reads) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Mines Washington Sept. 4, 192G. Benedict Shubart, Secy, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. Denver, Colo. Dear Sir: "Sorry not to be able to be with you but since my function in the Institute has been largely along the line of `stirrer up of trouble' (of course always with the aid of Dalrymple), I do not wish to fall from grace now so am sending you a pamphlet on the last page of which is a' tabulation as to accident indices of various coal mining states and it seems to indicate that the states comprising the Rocky Mountain Institute have the poorest accident record of all the states producing coal. "It seems to me that even allowing for possible deficiencies in connection with placing accidents upon basis of hours of exposure, our western states need to `tighten up' as to safety practices, hence I hope that the Safety Committee report will be both drastic and progressive and that western coal mines apply the drastic proposals in addition to approving them as the policy of the Institute. Why wouldn't it be advisable to have a committee appointed to ascertain why the safety record of the states comprising the Institute is so bad as to coal mines? Wishing the Institute all kinds of success." (Signed) D. HARRINGTON. SECRETARY SHUBART: He encloses this pamphlet issued by the Bureau of Mines. On the back of it is this table; and it is a fact that the Rocky Mountain States are down at the lowest in almost every case, at the lowest point, with the highest accident rate in almost every kind of accident. Maybe he is wrong; maybe he states this for reasons. That is a rotten looking table for us.

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

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

A great many questions were asked Mr. Bright, and Mr. Bright's opinion was given on a number of subjects. He spoke at length on spring suspension of locomotives, bringing out the necessity for better spring suspension due to heavier weights and higher speeds now developed. The subject of dynamic braking was brought up, and the opinion of the engineers present was that dynamic braking was not a desirable feature except where heavy, long, adverse grade is encountered. Mr. Goddard and Mr. Bright had a spirited discussion regarding ball bearings, bringing out the opinion of the meeting that ball bearings in motors are preferable to sleeve bearings, and the few failures so far encountered are due to improper application or insufficient size of bearing. Mr. Shubart brought up the question of locomotive speed, mentioning some high speed work on main haulage, also an interesting experiment in a large Eastern mine where very slow speed, 3 1/2 miles per hour, gathering locomotives were substituted for the high speed gathering locomotives with an increase in cars gathered and a material decrease in derailment and accident. Mr. Bright mentioned the improvement in gathering reels, and Mr. Shubart mentioned the safety in the use of the concentric cable in direct current, using the outer wire as the ground wire, so that in case of accident to the cable, the ground wire acted as a protector to the live wire, materially decreasing the danger of sparking. Mr. H. I. Smith of the Bureau of Mines brought up the question of explosion proof construction, and Mr.. Bright and. Mr. Shubart explained the construction adopted by two of the larger manufacturers. Experiment has shown that the force of explosion in motors due to gas does not exceed 150 pounds per square inch. All forms of screen or baffles have proven an actual source of danger, due to the collection of dust, usually soaked in oil, forming an active means of propagating flame, together with the fact that all these appendages are frequently left off when the motors are repaired. Modern construction eliminates all openings, screens, devices for stopping or extinguishing flame. The motor is made entirely enclosed, practically air tight, all joints are ground and all openings necessary for access and attention are closed by bolted plates. The case is made stout enough to withstand any interior explosions, and ample ribbing is provided for heat dissipation. Mr. Bright was asked regarding the use of contactor control. He replied that his company is now recommending contactor controls for series and parallel starting on all locomotives of 13 tons and over, and particularly on the tandem units that are now becoming popular in coal mining work. The question of dynamic braking and reversing was brought up and Mr. Bright explained that this made a very complicated contactor installation but they had

Jan 1, 1922

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

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

(Referring to map) If there are any methods to improve on this I would like to have some suggestions on it. The maps there are on a scale of one inch to two hundred feet. At the time of each extension a letter is used and a line drawn across the entry and the room. The date of the extension is given up in the margin of the map. Here is an extension made April 6th. Extension L is shown in each one of the rooms, November 29th. N-you see the two rooms have been finished down into here. 0-the last extension, has just been stopped, and the three working rooms. Now, one of the features of this plan, when the rooms have been stopped, the line is drawn straight across. When the room or entry is still going, there is a small projection beyond the line, indicating that the next cut is changed. When the distance cannot be ascertained by the engineer, he gets the distance from the mine boss or some other source which is reliable, and that is put on in a dotted line. That gives you a complete story. Anyone looking over the map can see immediately every place that was working at the time of this extension, every place that is inaccessible, and get a complete picture. The extension of the coal is put on the extension at each extension. The survey stations are put in, showing each survey point. The pillars when they are pulled-only the pillars that are pulled are cross-hatched. The whole map is in cross-hatch without any regard as to what pillars are pulled. If a little stump is left in, that is shown on the map. The engineer only shows what pillars are pulled that he has actual knowledge of, or has been given to him in detail by the mine foreman. I believe that concludes the work on the mine map, and there is certainly room for a lot of improvement on most of the mine maps which we have been getting into the office. PRESIDENT PRYDE: Does anyone want to ask any questions? Any questions about the leasing regulations? I want to say there are several leases in the Rock Springs field, and when Mr. Smith comes on one of his visits the Rock Springs Institute have asked him to address them on the leasing proposition.

Jan 1, 1924

By Thomas Foster

One of the most dreaded things which mining men sometimes have to contend with is underground mine fires, which are both dangerous and expensive. In the Reliance mines we have had considerable trouble with mine fires. We have at the present time five different fire zones, three of these zones give us considerable trouble and the other two have not given any trouble since they have been walled off. Fire Zone No. 1 comprises No. 2, 3 and 4 South Entries, about 50 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 2 comprises the main drift entry from the mouth to the Old Boundary Plane and extends to the crop line, about 10 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 3 comprises 1 and 2 North Entries from the main slope to the Old Boundary Plane, a distance of about 1,200 feet, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 4 comprises 11/2 and 2 North Entries, a distance of 1,100 feet between New Slope and Old Boundary Plane, about 15 acres are enclosed in this zone. Fire Zone No. 5 comprises the inside end of No. 11/2 and 2 North Entries and 3 North Entry from the New Slope to 30 room, a distance of about 2,600 feet along No. 3 North Entry, about 20 acres are enclosed in this zone. The first mine fire started in No. 2 South Entry in No. 1 zone in 1914. Inside of No. 7 room on the high side of the entry, there was a soft piece of coal. There were no rooms driven in this coal and one day a fire was discovered in the solid pillar on the high side of the entry, work was started at once to load out this fire. and several places was driven into the pillar and cribs built where the coal was taken out, but this method proved a failure and a sand pack was put up along the entry between the track and the high rib. This consisted of timber set about 3 feet from the rib and 2-inch boards put behind the timber and sand or adobe put in between the boards and the ribs, and this method gave very good results except that it required close watching as the sand would settle and let the smoke out between the roof and the sand. Fire broke out in No. 3 South Entry in No. 1 zone in the summer of 1919. We sealed this fire off by building 36 fire stoppings, which also enclosed the fire in No. 2 South Entry and we have never had any trouble with fires in this zone since it was walled off. The fire started in No. 2 -zone in 1919 and has been very active ever since. When this fire was first discovered we built new stoppings in front of the old one in the room necks; we also opened up some of the room necks and loaded out part of the burning coal and rock but this did not help any, the fire, would burn out around the stoppings also burn along the roof between the top coal and the roof sometimes nearly across the entry. Several holes were drilled from the surface to the fire area and flushing the fire was tried but this was also a:\, failure, the rock above the coal was so hot that the mud would dry in the hole and fill it. In 1921 we started to take down the top coal along this entry, timber the entry and put 2-inch boards behind the timber and fill in between the coal and the boards with sand or adobe. We have at present over 1,000 feet of this work done and it has given us better results than any other method that we have tried. As the coal burns out behind the timber the weight breaks the timber and it is necessary to renew some of it. Fire broke out in No. 1 North Entry in No. 3 zone in 1922. There was a stopping in this entry that had been put in when the entry was finished some few years before. The fire burned around the stopping on the low rib of the entry, we built another stopping in front of the old one taking down the top coal and extending it up to the roof also digging in both ribs and setting the stoppings into the coal about 18 inches. This fire did not cause any trouble until June, 1924, when we discovered this fire was very active on the inside

Jan 1, 1924

By George Cherpelis

1. Historical Background of the Employment Relationship A. The Relationship at Common Law 1. Jacob & Rachel 2. Domestic Relations 3. Statute of Laborers (Black Plague) 4. Puritan View (idleness as the parent of all vices) 5. Shift from law based on status to one based on contract B. Enforcing the Employee's Promise to Work I. Forced Labor a. English law b. Thirteenth Amendment 2. Forced Labor vis a vis Forced Performance - Role of the Court 3. Prevent working for another employer C. The Employer's Promise of Employment 1. Originally employment was considered of personal nature and employer could not be forced to employ or continue to employ 2. Impact of modern statutes

Jan 1, 1984

By T. H. Brien, O&apos

At nearly all of the copper smelters in the Southwest, at some time, calculations have been made having in view the economy of replacing fuel oil with pulverized coal as a heat-producing medium for smelting operations This matter has been, and is more so now than at any time heretofore, of very great importance. Due to the intensive development of oil-producing areas of the world and the tremendous use of fuel oil for many purposes, it seems that before many years the supply of oil will become so small as to prohibit its use for such operations as smelting. This may be caused by prohibitive prices, or even by government decree as a conservation measure. In the event that the use of fuel oil becomes out of the question, the copper companies have just two alternatives: the use of pulverized coal or electricity. The copper companies of the Southwest produced an average of 808,400,000 pounds of copper per year for the war years of 1916, 1917 and 1918. This figure is, of course, a higher one than has prevailed since the war, but at the present time nearly all of the mines and smelters are getting back to capacity. There is no doubt whatever that the consumption of copper is going to increase, perhaps for the next ten years. This means that more copper mines will be discovered and developed, and that the mines which are now producing will be called upon for a greater production. This all tends to show that the mine manager who is looking ahead must develop some substitute for fuel oil in the event of its use becoming prohibitive, and all indications seem to point in that direction. The only coal which is commercially available to the smelters in the district under discussion must come from Colorado and New Mexico. These coals are high in ash and volatile matter and comparatively low in calorific value. The proximity of the smelter to the coal mines is a large factor in determining which fuel is more economical. Most of the smelters within two or three hundred miles of the coal mines find it more profitable to burn coal, while those at greater distance find that the higher freight charges on the coal make the use of oil more economical.

Jan 1, 1923

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

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

By Bob Burnham

Agenda 1 Overview of forecasting process 2 Review of Pre and Post Recession Forecasts 3 US Demand/Supply Summary 4 Coal Demand by Region 5 Coal Distribution by Census Region 6 Coal Price Outlook 7 Carbon Cases 8 Takeaways

Jan 1, 2009

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

Marcie A. Greenberg RMCMI PRESIDENT 1995-1996 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 92nd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 1996 Durango, Colorado

Jan 1, 1995

WILLIAM P BALAZ RMCMI PRESIDENT 1990-1991 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 87th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30, July 1 & 2, 1991 Keystone Resort, Colorado

Jan 1, 1990

RMCMl PRESIDENT CHARLES W. MARGOLF on behalf of The RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers invites you and your family to attend The 81st Regular Meeting and Convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to be held at Tamarron, Durango, Colorado JUNE 30, JULY 1 AND 2, 1985

Jan 1, 1984

By T. H. Butler

February 22nd, 1926. Mr. Benedict Shubart, 521 Boston Building, Denver, Colorado. Dear Mr. Shubart: At your request, am submitting to you several suggestions for the amendment of our safety code which you felt should be kept up to date. As before, am advising you that these suggestions do not have the approval of the entire Safety Committee, but rather are the individual opinions of several members who have expressed their wishes in the form of letters to me. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Dan Harrington and Mr. Wm. Littlejohn for their assistance. Would recommend the following amendment a to the various sections. Section 1. Wherever possible trolley wires should be securely hung to roof or timbers at a distance of not less than five feet and not more than six and one-half feet above rail and six inches to one side. Spacing of hangers should be from 20 to 25 feet apart. Section 2. 500 volts D. C. should not be allowed in any installations. Trolley wires should not carry a voltage of more than 250 D. C. Pumps, mining machines and other small machinery units where A. C. power is used should not carry a voltage of more than 220. Large units, such as pumps, motor genera- tor set and hoists, may use a voltage of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings. Section 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stoppings they should be properly insulated with porcelain or rubber tubing. Whenever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same

Jan 1, 1926

By H. Petersen

If a coal mine producing two hundred thousand (200,000) tons of coal per year could effect a 2 per cent decrease in the percentage of slack there would be an additional 4,000 tons of prepared coal produced. Most operators will say that these prepared sizes of coal are worth about $3.00 more per ton to them than the slack or in other words an additional $12,000.00 pier year profit could be made by a decrease of 2 per cent in slack. A large tipple with all the finest modern equipment of shaker screens, conveyors, box car loaders, etc., can only produce a grade of coal dependent upon the coal delivered by the mine car at the top of the tipple. In the mine, coal-cutting machines have been doing their part for many years toward decreasing the percentage of slack. There is therefore, only one phase of production left where real effective work can be done, that is, intelligent and constant supervision of preparatory work and shooting. The quality of coal is really entirely dependent upon the kind of coal produced at the face in the mine. Our problem is therefore, at that place. The writer is thoroughly convinced that with the proper placing of holes the use of correct amount of a suitable explosive, thoroughly tamped, with the bug dust entirely removed from the mining, a decrease in slack can be effected. We will take up this problem under five headings. First-The proper placing of bore holes. Second-The proper amount of permissible powder. Third-The proper loading and stemming of the shot.-Cushing shooting. Fourth-The necessity of removing the bug dust from the mining. Fifth - The - standardization of rounds. First-The Proper Placing of Bore Holes. The most important thing and the real secret of successful blasting of coal is the proper placing of the bore hole. This results in the correct balancing of the shot and the securing of the maximum efficiency of the explo¬sive. If you are operating a mine with a 6-foot coal seam, you most likely are using a 6-foot cutter bar on the coal cutting machines. You should use three holes to properly bring down the coal. (1) A center shot in the middle of the room drilled flat, or rather parallel to the mining-the heights of this hole will depend upon the top parting. If the coal is frozen to the roof, it will be necessary to have the hole as close to the roof as possible. If there is a free parting, the hole may be placed lower but not over twelve inches from the roof. (2)

Jan 1, 1925

By Warren C. Bracewell

At your request, am submitting to you several suggestions for the amendment of our safety code which you felt should be kept up to date. These suggestions are the individual opinions of the several members of the Committee who have expressed (heir wishes to me in the form of letters. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Daniel Harrington, Mr. Wm. Littlejohn, Mr. Warren Bracewell, Mr. James Dalrymple and Mr. Hugh McLeod. Would recommend the following amendments Section 1. Wherever practical trolley wires should be securely hung to roof or timbers at a distance of not less than five feet and not more than six and one-half feet above rail and six inches to one side. Spacing of hangers should be from 20 to 25 feet apart. (Adopted.) Section 2. 500 volts D. C. should not be allowed in any installations. Trolley wires should not carry a voltage of more than 250 D. C. nominal voltage. (Referred back.) Pumps, mining machines and other small machinery units where A. C. power is used should not carry a voltage of more than 220. Large units, such as pumps, motor generator sets and hoists, may use a volt- age of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings, on haulage-ways or where men travel. (Adopted.) Section. 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stop- pings they should be properly insulated with porcelain compound or rubber tubing. Wherever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same should be secure1y guarded and should also be protected with a cut- out switch, same to be pulled before men are allowed to get on or off trips. (Adopted.)

Jan 1, 1926