Search Documents

By Kirk Nobis

Develop a Risk Management Plan for Your Mine ? Why? ? Measuring ? Managing ? Conclusion

Jan 1, 2006

By Franklin P. Wood

Unnumbered ages have passed since the time when nature's laboratories were working without the aid of capital or labor unions assisted only by earth's cooling crust and old Sol's rays, to lay the prodigious coal beds of the earth and distil the oils which now furnish the basis for the world's great industries. Strangely enough rays from the same old sun probably somewhat diminished in intensity are still drawing from earth to clouds the water that will run down hill and through man-made devices produce energy to compete with that made with the products created in ages past. So now we find that within the past century vast human industries have grown up around the products of these agencies and here we are today discussing the many problems connected therewith and among the others the subject of this paper, which is essentially the relation of COAL to OIL in industry. The problems involved are those of human relationship and are not fundamentally unsolvable when engineering skill and knowledge is properly applied. The last few years has developed a brand of pessimism that is especially prevalent in the coal industry, at any rate in the west where we come in contact with it. In any general discussion with coal men, a very short time only is required to bring out the feeling or expression that the coal business is on the rocks and the reasons run the gamut of human deviltry. We have heard that in the not far distant past corn was so cheap that the farmers were compelled to burn it and thus deprive the coal mines of their well earned right to sell coal for this purpose. We have heard that the flood of oil is so vast that it was being burned in preference to coal, and to heap insult on injury that the rail- road locomotives were burning oil in order to pull coal away from the mines. We have heard that the union was responsible for all the woes to which the industry is subjected. We have heard that the family tin lizzie is so depleting the family exchequer that coal could not be purchased and if purchased could not be collected for. We have heard that producing mines are so numerous that the profits are a negligible quantity. These are but a few of the reasons assigned for making the coal producers a class of pessimists which is not good for the industry. All these reasons given and all the others must be taken collectively and these are not the cause but the effect of a rapidly changing civilization. An analogy may be found in the experience of many of us in the electric industry a few years ago. You may remember that less than 20 years ago the high efficiency Tungsten electric globe was introduced. It was so much more efficient than the old carbon lamp that only one-third of the current previously required was needed to produce the same illumination. Consternation seized the ranks of electrical men who had little or no vision, for the out- look was that so little current would be sold that everyone would be bankrupt. This limited vision, however, did not prevail, for all engaged in the industry spurred on by necessity, accomplished many of the things that we are now enjoying the fruits of be- cause the electric industry has grown and is growing by leaps and bounds and every highly efficient improvement is greeted with rejoicing. It is well known that when the old type of carbon arc lamp began to be replaced by modern units the manufacturer of carbon rods thought his doom was sealed and yet these same manufacturers have so adjusted them- selves to conditions that the dry battery business of today is of vastly greater volume and profit than was the carbon rod business of the past. Of course, there are industries that should not have survived anyway that have gone down and out to makeway for vastly improved conditions and can

Jan 1, 1925

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

Jan 1, 1981

Mr. Geo. B. Pryde, Chairman; Committee on Safety, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, Rock Springs, Wyoming. Dear Mr. Pryde: In accordance with suggestion in your letter to me of June 21, 1923, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dalrymple and I had a meeting and attached find our contribution to the proposed August report of the Committee on Safety. You will note that we have confined ourselves to matters in connection with explosions and prevention of explosions, in coal mines. If the committee is to report on general safety in coal mines, including accidents from haulage, timbering, rock falls, electricity, etc., we would like to suggest that you ask other members of the committee to specialize on one or more of these subjects. Especially we believe it would be advisable to specialize as to precautions against electrical accidents with giving of data as to maximum voltage, precautions to be taken as to gas ignitions by mining machines at faces, best methods of placing power wires underground, etc.; also give information as to up-to-date safety installations, such as whistle devices notifying of disarrangement of ventilation or devices for quick cutting off of electrical power from mines under certain conditions; also give data as to efficient safety man cars on various pitches, etc. Yours truly, D. HARRINGTON.

Jan 1, 1923

By C. A. Allen

When the writers were asked to prepare a paper on this subject for this meeting of the Institute there was some question in our minds as to what to say that would be of interest to the members. You all know that Utah has some wonderful seams of good coal, on which have been opened some of the most modern mines in the United States, and that her coal operators have been putting forth many efforts to reduce losses due to accidents as well as disease. While I believe that the physical condition of Utah's mines is as good as in any other state we are not unaware of the fact that a great deal can still be done and we are always willing to frankly discuss the accident situation in the state. Dr. Murray has assembled some interesting figures showing the monetary loss due to accidents and disease which I will will proceed to give you to show the necessity of continued efforts in welfare work regardless of humane considerations.

Jan 1, 1922

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

Jan 1, 1925

By Eli Follett

It is indeed gratifying to note the marked improvement in the methods used in the coal- mines today compared to the methods in earlier days. Away back in the decade of 1900 to 1910 many of the mines were conspicuous for their absence of sprinkling and humidifying systems, as a result much of the natural moisture was absorbed by the dry air current and carried out of the mine and the mine was left dry, dusty and dangerous. This dangerous condition was intensified by large accumulations of fine coal dust on the haulageways where fire flashed from poorly lubricated rollers and bullwheels-trip riders used a torch with a flame reaching to the back of their necks, and large supplies of blasting powder were kept in the mines. Accidents and disasters were very frequent as we, in our ignorance flirted with danger. Staggered by the numerous accidents, and the nature of them; men began thinking along lines of safety, they worked out schemes and after many disappointments succeeded in having, some very whole some legislation enacted covering coal mining operations only to find that much lawlessness was still being practiced by the miners whom they sought to protect; step by step these safety men forged ahead, enlisting the co-operation of a few men about the mine whom they called a safety committee, until, today, we have an ironclad mining law which all have to respect. We have sprinkling and humidifying systems, the miners electric lamp, permissible explosives and many other devices making for greater safety in the operation of our coal mines. Our mines are no longer veritable gasometers and powder storehouses, as I. knew them to be in South Wales, Britain, where I started to work in the mines. Instead, the mines of this day are healthy, well lighted and ventilated workshops and too much cannot be said in the praise of safety engineers who, fought altruistically in their efforts to bring about the wonderfully improved conditions in the coal mines of this day. While the possibility of a mine fire starting, in these days of scientific mining, is remote every one admits there still exists a possibility and to deal with a fire, should one start, most coal miners are equipped with fire extinguishers. Extinguishers of all designs conceivable are on the market, the different extinguishers are charged with different chemical substances, Some are charged with patented chemicals and others with baking soda and sulphuric acid and so on, however, many of them are equipped with about eighteen inches of rubber hose and bear the conventional "FOR FIRE-TURN UPSIDE DOWN" but nothing is said to indicate how close it may be necessary to take the extinguisher to the fire before doing the "TURN UPSIDE DOWN" act, neither is anything said as to what effect the contents may have upon the' hands, face or body of operator should he come in contact with the liquid, nor is any warning given as to the dangers in the fumes which may come from the contents of the extinguisher in contact with the fire.

Jan 1, 1922

Albert M. Keenan, President, Thompson Creek Coal and Coke Corporation, Denver, Colorado, opened the third session of the Fifty-ninth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute at 9:30 a.m., and introduced the first speaker of the morning. Raphael J. Moses, Attorney, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Boulder, Colorado, spoke on "The Opportunity for Coal in Colorado River Basin Development." (For the printed text of Mr. Moses' paper see index.) Stephen F. Dunn, President, National Coal Association, Washington, D. C., was introduced by Mr. Keenan, and he addressed the Institute concerning "Coal and the Washington Scene."

Jan 1, 1963

of our good friends and fellow members: James Dalrymple, Sr. R. M. Perry A. E. Oliver R. M. Harding C. L. Oliver Arthur S. White Arthur N. Fancher A. E. Lindrooth D. A. Stout Clayton Morrison Frank O'Ryan Charles Billington who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1935

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 J. J. Forbes

Gentlemen : It is a pleasure to come to Glen- wood Springs to participate in this meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute an organization created to handle chiefly the economic questions dealing with the coal industry of the Rocky Mountain District. I am not unmindful of the many and varied problems confronting the mining industry of this country which is so general at the present time throughout the United States. By reason of the difficulties experienced in marketing the product of your mines, there is all the more reason for greater economy and efficiency in production. No industry can be efficiently operated without giving due consideration to the safety of the employees. Safety and efficiency are inseparable for the success of any industrial enterprise. While the Bituminous coal companies of the United States are doing splendid work in the promotion of safety, yet our fatality rate is exceedingly higher compared with that of foreign countries, and with greater cooperative organized effort on the part of mine owners, mine officials, mine workers, and state and federal governmental agencies having jurisdiction, much more substantial progress can be made in the future and a greater economic saving .to the industry effected, not taking into consideration the greatest and most important phase of safety, which is the conservation of life and health of all those who are engaged in the occupation of mining. You are concerned with freight rates, marketing of coal and similar operating problems. Yet have you earnestly considered the vital question that plays so important a part toward the success of any mill-

Jan 1, 1926

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

The Sixty-First Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:00 a.m. by Past President Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Claude introduced Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc., Denver, Colorado. His introduction of President Bridwell follows: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege and pleasure to open this session of the Sixty-first Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. My particular assignment is to introduce to you (those of you at least who do not know him) our Acting President, who for now we will call "Brid."

Jan 1, 1965

Presiding: Herman Van Houten, Senior Marketing Counselor, Joy Mfg. Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., and John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal &Coke Co., Carbondale, Colorado. The Keynote Speaker, Senator Jennings Randolph from West Virginia, was unable to come due to pressing business in Washington. A film presentation on Surface Mining and Reclamation, "Energy Bridge," Courtesy of Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Company, Denver, Colorado, was shown and was prefaced by comments from James V. Fisher. "Advantages of Longwall Mining in Western Coal Production" was a paper presented by David W. Wisecarver, Supervisory Mining Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Wisecarver graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1949. After two years with International Harvester and two years in the U.S. Army, he joined the engineering staff on a Bureau of Mines underground mining operation in Virginia for eight years where he saw duties as mine surveyor, shift boss, and assistant maintenance superintendent.

Jan 1, 1977

President Schloss called the third session of the fifty-eighth annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order at 9:30 a.m. and introduced James Westfield, Assistant Director, Health and Safety, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who presided over the session. First speaker of the session was S. L. Jewell, Vice President, Peabody Coal Company, St. Louis, Missouri, who spoke on "Our Three Main Routes From Here." (Biographical sketch of Mr. Jewell, see index.) (For the printed text of Mr. Jewell's paper see index.) Mr. Westfield introduced Marling J. Ankeny, Director, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who served as moderator on the panel, "How Do We Go From Here in Safety?"

Jan 1, 1962

Presiding-Thomas R. Young, President, Wyoming Fuel Company, Lakewood, Colorado. Mark Gillaspie, Vice President, San Marco Pipeline Company, Houston Natural Gas Company, Houston, Texas, presented a very interesting film-"Invocation in Coal Transportation-Black Mesa Coal Slurry Pipeline." (See index for printed text of Mark Gillaspie's remarks) * * * Kaye Kuhlmann, President of Citizens for Total Energy, San Jose, California, presented a paper-"Grass Roots Support for Energy Policy." (See index for printed text of Mrs. Kuhlmann's paper.) Mrs. Kuhlmann is President of Citizens for Total Energy, an International volunteer grassroots organization with the purpose of educating the public on energy alternatives. CITE strongly advocates responsible citizen participation in the establishment of energy policy.

Jan 1, 1980

Our presiding officer for this session is someone we are all proud to be associated with. One who is dedicated to Public Service and Safety in the State of Colorado, and known in the mining field and the Colorado Mining Association. We are very pleased to introduce Mr. Donald Haske, Chief Mine Inspector for the State of Colorado: Donald Haske: Officers, Members and guests. It is certainly my pleasure to be here today and an extra special pleasure to be presiding over this session. As some of you know, from natural up, heavy equipment is rapidly coming to the field of mining. This may seem a long way off at the present, but it certainly isn't. We are getting all the old annuals (Bi) together to be compiled for a guide and public attraction. However, we are unable to locate an (1894 panel). If any of you know of any of these please let us know.

Jan 1, 1967

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

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

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I have every reason to know Mr. Pryde was carrying out some experiment a while ago in some of his mines. He and I had a little correspondence on the question, and I think he may have a word or two to say about it. He has not been on his feet today at all. I will ask Mr. Pryde to tell us what he has to say. MR. PRYDE: I have not very much to say about shooting coal with permissible powder as far as slack is concerned because we are not in the commercial business. All of our coal goes to the railroad and a very large part of it is crushed for use in the stokers of the locomotives. We are on a 100 per cent permissible powder basis and as far as I am able to see, I do not believe that the percentage of slack is increasing with its use. We find it hard to convince our commercial neighbors of this fact because they are naturally very much against increasing their percentage of slack on ac- count of the low price received for this grade of coal. I, personally, believe that where a change is made from black powder to permissible powder the percentage of slack will be increased for a time because the miners have been accustomed to using black powder and they are rather suspicious about going to the permissible powder and I do not believe that we can blame them very much. So the tendency with them is to use too much powder. We have gradually overcome this, although, as I said before, we have not kept close track of the production of slack. However, we try to get as large an amount of lump coal as possible. Broadly speaking, I can say from observation that in my opinion there is very little difference in the percentage of slack with the use of the permissible powder that we have today than there was with the use of black powder. I also get this information from our mine superintendents. Mr. Peterson and the other explosive men have been very helpful to us in the use of permissible powder and I confess I have to take everything back that I said several years ago. At that time I was against permissible powder, particularly on account of the cost, but, with the newer permissible powder, we have gotten the cost down very well. I know today that the cost of permissible powder in the coal mines of the Union Pacific Coal Company is less than when we were using black powder. I know this because of the fact that we kept a record of the number of tons we got with black powder, and the number of tons we get with permissible powder compares very favorably in cost. I know this, too, because of the fact that our employes, except in the first few weeks of using permissible powder, have made no demand upon us for any in- crease ill pay to offset any added cost that might accrue in the use of permissible powder and the fact that they have asked for no increase is very conclusive proof to me that it is not

Jan 1, 1925