Search Documents

Oren F. Bridwell: We will close out the Institute. The President could not be here. So the Past President of the organization has been asked to take the chair. If there is no objection I will be glad to do so. We will proceed with the meeting. It seems to me we have a quorum. Minutes of last year's meetings are published in the Proceedings. If there is no objection we will dispense with the reading of the minutes. There being none we will dispense with the minutes. The Nominating Committee made its re- port last night. (See list of officers in front of Proceeding.) I move the nominations be closed. Mr. Bridwell: You have heard the motion and second. All in favor say "Aye." (Unanimous.) Motion carried. We will have a report of the Auditing Committee. Mr. Von Storch read the financial statement.

Jan 1, 1966

The fifth Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held June 29 through July 2 in conjunction with the 92nd RMCMI Convention. Eight teams from four states participated. They were: BHP La Plata Mine NM Capt. Jonathon Sorrell BHP Navajo Mine NM Capt. Ron Miller BHP San Juan Mine NM Capt. Albert Nelson Bridger Coal Company WY Capt. Ted Laughlin Coteau Properties Co ND Capt. Terry Davis Kerr-McGee Coal Corp WY Capt. Elvin Stanton Sabine Mining Company TX Capt. Spencer Thompson Solvay Minerals WY Capt. Ray Blaisdell Activities started with a Rope Rescue class taught by John Peleaux, from Innovative Access, at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. The Mine Rescue Reception, Team Meeting, and Equipment Inspection was held Saturday evening. All participants received a T-shirt and cap. The Mine Rescue Evaluation started Sunday morning and ran until it was rained out around 3:00 p.m. There was a team swap meet Sunday evening at which teams bought extra caps and shirts. They also traded with other teams. [ ] The Evaluation resumed Monday morning and ran until mid-afternoon. The Evaluation was made up of seven stations. There were six scenarios and a written test. Teams were also challenged by a 14-foot confidence course wall to get their team over. The teams were evaluated by: Jack Knight Champion International, Pensacola, FL Becki Pickert Colorado Northwestern Community College, Craig, CO John Peleaux Innovative Access, Evergreen, CO Lynn Busskohl Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Lenny Altenburg Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Elvin Stanton Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Clarence Baker Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY The victims for the scenarios were from the Kerr-McGee Mine Rescue-Team. They were: Dana Cooper, Doland Zink, Suzanne Ott, Mike Szuma, and Craig Moore. Also helping as a victim was Candy Cobb from Casper, WY. [ ] The program concluded Tuesday morning with the Awards Breakfast. A medical kit, donated by Strategic Supply, was given to the Solvay Minerals Team for the fastest time over the confidence wall. Engraved stone awards were given to the teams indicating the rating they achieved. Four teams received Level Ill (The highest rating) and three received Level II. The Kerr-McGee team also received an award for helping put on the evaluation. Additional stones were presented to Jack Knight, John Peleaux, Becki Pickert, and RMCMI President. Marcie Greenberg. The current plans for the 1997 Mine Rescue program are that Jim Andrews with Colowyo Coal will assume the chairmanship. Goals for next year are to increase funding and participation by establishing sub-committees or task groups. With the chair located in Colorado, coordination of the evaluation should be easier. Comments from all the teams were positive and they intend to return next year at Steamboat Springs. [ ]

Jan 1, 1996

By Thomas Collier

MR. PRESIDENT AND CO-WORKERS IN THE COAL INDUSTRY: I was requested by our president to prepare a paper on Longwall Coal Mining, to be read before this honorable organization. There are three general systems of Longwall, Longwall advancing and Longwall retreating, and the Nottingham system which is worked in England and South Wales. In Fremont county, where I am employed, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company are working their mines on the advancing system. The face is started generally from the bottom of the shaft or other mine opening, or, at the outside of the pillar left to support the shaft or slope-bottom and advances toward the boundary of coal area. As the roads in this system are maintained by pack walls, it is sometimes called gob-roads system, and by these means the mine is opened up rapidly and consequently early returns are secured from the capital invested. By this method, there is no expense for narrow work, and a minimum amount of timbering of the roads is required. Now what I call ideal Longwall work is where there is about eight inches of dirt mining-and four and one-half feet of coal, .and when the entries and rooms will gob themselves, so that there will be no rock or dirt to haul out to the surface. But this is not the case in the mine I am in charge of. The entries and rooms will not gob themselves, therefor we have to haul the rock and dirt to the surface, which runs up the cost of production. Now the ideal roof in Longwall is composed of tough elastic and pliable strata that yield gradually by bending when the coal is removed, and throwing a sufficient weight or roof pressure on the coal face to break the coal when the same has been mined or undercut. Timbering should be done systematically, the coal well spragged before the miner starts to undermine the coal. Cogs or cribs are alright in their place, but I am not a believer in crib in Longwall working because they are too strong for the roof and do not leave the roof to squeeze .down gradually and break the roof around the crib. Longwall work requires particular skill on the part of the miner, and a familiarity with the conditions affecting room and pillar work, and a good room and pillar mail may not be successful in. Longwall work. A good Longwall miner realizes more than any one else the importance of being regularly at his place every working day. A day lost causes his place to fall behind the others which makes his work harder, and his daily output is further reduced by the amount of small coal that is liable to result from the excessive pressure where the face falls behind. The bad results are also felt by the miner working on each side of such place, as the roof pressure is often insufficient and the coal does not break as well as when the face is kept in a uniform line.

Jan 1, 1921

By William M. Wallace

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject, "Shake It for Results," may or may not suggest just what is to be shaken, or just what results are to be obtained. I can assure you that if you are thinking about anything outside the realm of pure mining application you have come to the wrong meeting, and if this be the case, you have come to hear a subject discussed that I am not prepared to undertake-at the moment, at least. At the very beginning of time, results were definitely obtained by shaking. If you will recall, Eve shook a certain tree of forbidden fruit-need I recount to you the results that were, and are still, being credited to that bit of engineering? To get closer to the subject at hand, it is the intent of this paper to touch generally on the shaking, principally the vibratory shaking, of materials on a piece, or pieces, of perforated metal or screen cloth. Through the evolution of such a motion we find that great strides have been made toward a highly efficient "operation which is an essential factor in the mining world of today. The object of the shaking motion is to more efficiently separate one size material from another, according to the openings in the screening medium over which it is passed. Sizing is an important operation in every ore dressing, coal prepara¬tion or other mineral-preparing plant for reducing the product to a form more concentrated or more convenient for utilization than that in which it was mined. In coal preparation, market requirements, convenience, custom, and efficiency in combustion necessitate grading mined coal by sizes. All ore-dressing or coal preparation plants therefore must have what is called screening, sizing, or grading apparatus.

Jan 1, 1941

By Geo. A. Brown

This paper was written from conditions existing in the Cumberland Mines of The Union Pacific Coal Co., with my impressions and cause of same. These mines are located on a branch line of the 0. S. L. R. R., about sixteen miles south of Kemmerer, Wyoming. The mines are the property of The Union Pacific Coal Company with headquarters at Rock Springs, Wyo. There are two mines, No. 1 and No. 2, located about two miles apart in a seam of coal averaging about 16 feet thick which is split with a parting of rock from 4 feet to G feet from the bottom, averaging from 4 inches to 5 feet thick, mostly of soft fire clay, with an average pitch of 21 degrees to the west. The lower coal below the fire clay band being of a soft nature, much softer than the coal above it. The cover or roof next to the coal is of a massive sandstone formation from 4 feet to 60 feet thick while the floor of the seam is of a soft fire clay as far down as has been prospected. These mines are also of a dry and dusty nature, they generate lots of fire damp and are subject to fires from numerous causes. These mines were opened up in 1900 with five openings each, Main Slope, North and South Manways and North and South Aircourses driven parallel directly on the pitch of the seam which is fairly regular, entries being turned North and South at right angles off the slope about 300 feet apart. The entries were driven double 10 feet wide with chain pillars from 20 feet to 30 feet thick. The main entries are used for haulage and main intake, back entries for return aircourses. Rooms are turned on 50-foot centers and 20 feet wide, directly on the pitch Galvanized sheet iron chutes are used in the rooms. The slopes were driven down in No. 1 mine about 4,000 feet, in No. 2 mine about 5,000 feet where the cover would be about 1,400 feet in No. 1 mine and about 1,700 feet in No. 2 mine approximately. When a point about 2,000 feet on the slope had been reached with cover, 600 or 700 feet squeezing became noticeable on the entries and room pillars with slight bumps which extended clear to the upper entries of the mines and continued to get worse as the mines got deeper and with more cover as no pillars had been removed at this time. It should be stated here that faulty ground was found on the south side of No. 2 mine and on the north side of No. 1 mine, in some places looking like a fault of a down throw, some places like a want and other places like an erosion. The latter theory seems to be correct from prospecting and drilling. The mining of entries and rooms became more difficult with more squeeze and bumps of increased pressure which closed entries and aircourses and finally caused the lower workings of the mine to be abandoned. It was then decided to open up the entries from the 6th up, or approximately half way up the slope. The opening of these entries was started with the intention of extracting pillar coal but considerable danger was met with for the entries .were squeezed tight and when they were disturbed, bumps and squeeze conditions had to be contended with, also gas and fires due to the continued grind on the pillars due to overhead pressure bringing on friction which caused innumerable fires to start in the bottom coal. Bumps being so extensive at times as to close up aircourses for 500 or 600 feet, also discharge timber, coal and rock from the rib of slope and entries for hundreds of feet, dislodging tracks and throwing mine cars around just as if an explosion had taken place, filling places with gas and throwing dust into the atmosphere so that you could cut it with a knife. It became necessary to discontinue the use of black powder and naked lights entirely as a safety precaution. Permissible Powder Monobel No. 5 and Wico Electric Safety Lamps were installed. All coal was shot off the solid whenever it was necessary to shoot. ' In opening up these entries it was found that practically all of the weight was centered on room pillars up to the first crosscut chain pillars and barrier pillars between top of rooms of entry below and the one above which averaged 30 feet thick and in all practically 120 feet of ground. The rooms were mostly open from the first crosscut up to the face which showed that the points mentioned had taken the weight. It was found impossible in some of these entries to drive double entries again as the bumps and squeeze made it impossible to maintain them. This made ventilation quite a problem, small booster fans and flexoid tubing being used for ventilation until one entry could be connected with the one above which has solved most of our ventilation problems so far.

Jan 1, 1924

MR. C. M. GODDARD: Mr. Poli invented this little safety switch box. This junction box he has does improve the appearance mentioned in the underground junction boxes used in the foreign countries, where this thing is compulsory. There was some arrangement whereby the attachment could not be made with the switch in. The switch has got to be out of place before they can put the terminals into this box, which avoids all possibilities of short-circuits, except where protected on the inside of this box. In mines that are not gaseous, this is not so essential, but he has invented a very small junction box which probably. could be built for six or eight or ten dollars; if those things are necessary, for the handling of mining machines and their apparatus, takes current off the transmission line, and he has something that would meet that requirement, and I think when it is looked into it will meet the approval of the Bureau of Mines. He had this little box yesterday, and some of the members had looked it over and think, if they will look more favorably into it, they will find something to their advantage. PRESIDENT PRYDE: I think it is a good idea to bring in safety appliances and devices at this meeting. There were two more devices brought in here this morning; one a safety powder flask, and the other a carbide can. We have talked a great deal about permissible powder. It is going to take a little time to change over, and we would have to use the black powder cans. I will leave them in the window, if you care to investigate them.

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Dyer's paper. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. NORMAN: I would like to ask the gentleman what is the distance between your crosscuts for the ventilation of rooms and entries in the state of Utah?

Jan 1, 1925

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

By J. L. Floyd

The Trapper Mine is a large surface coal operation located in northwestern Colorado US. The coal seams at the mine dip an average of 8 degrees so, historically, their dragline pits have been orien-tated parallel to the dip of the coal seam to balance stripping ratios. However, the mine plan in the future G and Z pits is designed to take advantage of pit orientations that are parallel to the strike of the coal. During the initial presplit and cast blasts in G pit, significant slope damage occurred. This damage included the opening of joints and tension cracking. There was also block movement directly above the L coal seam, which is the main plane of weakness in the slope. A detailed site evaluation was conducted to develop specific blast design modifications to protect the slopes during future blasting. The modified de-signs successfully controlled vibration levels during the blasting of the Z pit box cut. This paper includes a review of the blast vibration related factors that influence slope stability along with a detailed discussion of the field tests and design modifications developed.

Jan 1, 2004

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Past President R. M. von Storch, who introduced the President, R. R. Williams, Jr., Manager of Mines, The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado. His speech of welcome is as follows: "Members and guests of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It is my distinct privilege to welcome you to the fifty-fifth regular meeting of the Institute. We have again gathered to meet our treasured friends, to make new acquaintances, to hear important papers by outstanding authorities, and to generally enjoy ourselves in the setting of the beautiful city of Colorado Springs. It is the prerogative of your President to appear as optimistic as he desires in the opening remarks to this Institute. I must admit that I have had to cast aside some bare and significant facts to the contrary. However, there must be a great deal of optimism present in an industry that can survive the adversities that have confronted. the coal industry within recent years.

Jan 1, 1959

By Michael A. Poling

Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to be with you, and to share my outlook on the future of Federal coal leasing. I'm told that you wanted the best speaker on this subject in the world. Perhaps it's a reflection of these trying financial times, but I'm glad you finally agreed to settle for the best speaker your budget would afford. I have been asked to give you some insight on the status of Federal coal leasing, and how the budget problems facing the Department will affect the coal program. So I've polished up my crystal ball, and I'll try to give you a peek at the future. Before I do that, however, let me first go back in time - to when this Administration took office in 1981. We had a coal program then, after a hiatus of ten years. But that program was untested and - for reasons well known to all of you - did not work well in practice once we began operating the program. We went back to the drawing board and redesigned the program so that it can do what it is intended to do. We've made the program more predictable. That means that when future lease sales are scheduled, those sales will be reflective and reactive to the need to lease coal. On February 26, Secretary Hodel unveiled a framework for resumption of Federal leasing program activities, ending a more than two-year suspension of regional coal sales. The new program will provide the opportunity to satisfy market demand for acquiring and developing new leases, assure the government of fair market value for its coal reserves, and provide a stable supply of coal for this country's energy needs. The new program grew out of the Department's response to recommendations of the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment, coupled with a supplemental environmental study. The Linowes Report, issued in 1984, contained 36 recommendations and three Judgments on leasing levels, tract selection, sale procedures, appraisal methods, key statutory and related factors, and organization and management of the leasing program. Major changes in the new leasing program reflect these concerns. We have developed a definition for captive tracts and devised procedures to appraise their value to the adjacent coal or mine owner. Other steps include a coal lease appraisal guide which describes our appraisal methodology and is available to the public. Improvements have also been made in the gathering of lease assignment information to help in estimating the value of potential lease tracts. To improve market analysis, a three-tiered system will be used to ensure that steps of the lease sale decision process are undertaken in the context of coal supply and demand. Regional Coal Teams will thus have the advantage of long range, regional and tract specific market studies to help them determine whether sufficient demand is expected first to warrant the initiation of activity planning, then to set regional leasing levels, and finally to actually offer specific tracts for lease sale. Sale procedures will also be improved in many ways to encourage competition, improve the chances for receiving adequate bids, and to evaluate whether bids represent fair market value. We made additional modifications to the program in response to the OTA recommendations. Regional Coal Teams have been given a larger role in recommending key decisions concerning the amounts of coal to be studied and the actual selection and scheduling of tracts for lease sale. These recommendations will be accepted unless the Secretary can cite an overriding national interest factor, or a governor's request to modify the recommendations. Smaller, more frequent sales will be held, to better judge market conditions and prevent over- or under-leasing. Public participation guidelines have been written, to document all opportunities for the public to comment at various stages in the planning process. We also decided that resource management plans prepared after the passage of FLPMA in 1976 must be completed, in order for a new round of lease sale planning to begin. The BLM will also beef up its procedures for consulting with affected Federal agencies during the planning process, to assure that the purposes and values of those agencies are considered and factored into land use decisions. To assure consistent use of an adequate data base in coal lease decision-making, Regional Coal Teams will develop standards and guidelines for data adequacy, and document the use of these standards. These procedures will also be applied to the unsuitability criteria screening process. Thus, the new leasing system announced by Secretary Hodel: is fully responsive to recommendations made by the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment for improving environmental planning and fair market value procedures; gives the regional coal teams a major say in determining leasing levels, and on the timing,

Jan 1, 1986

[Andrew Allen Glenwood Springs, Colorado C. S. Allen 211 Utah Oil Building, 10 West Broadway, Salt Lake City 1, Utah Earl W. Allen 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Louis B. Allen 411 Walker Bank Building, Salt Lake City, Utah Thomas Allen State Coal Mine Inspector of Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado J. B. Ambler P. O. Box 591, Denver, Colorado Nephi W. Anderson Dragerton, Utah F. F. Argust 270 High Street, Pueblo, Colorado E. K. Arnston : 4601 West 26th Avenue, Denver 12, Colorado Abel Audin Somerset, Colorado Clement Audin, Jr Paonia, Colorado Ralph Andin P. 0. Box 285, Somerset, Colorado ]

Jan 1, 1955

The seventh Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1998 Institute convention at the Silvertree Hotel, in Snowmass Village, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Elliott Tsosie, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1998 a record number of 10 teams participated in the program. The teams were from the four western states of Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming and were comprised of about eight members each. Teams participating were BHP-La Plata Mine, BHP-Navajo Mine, BHP-San Juan Mine, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Company, Rock Springs, Wyoming; General Chemical, Green River, Wyoming; Jacobs Ranch Mine, Gillette, Wyoming; Powder River Coal Company-North Antelope/Rochelle, Gillette, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Hallsville, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River Wyoming, and Western Energy-Colstrip, Montana. The professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for over 90 participants and many observers. The evaluators were: Art Saenz and Tom Bass of Western Environmental Associates, Keith Mitchell and Jim Jennings of Emergency Services Detail; Mary Bailey of Mary Bailey Associates; and John Peleaux of Innovative Access. Teams are not given advance warning of what the problem will entail. They are provided the necessary details when they arrive at the scenario location and work to resolve the problem in an effective and efficient manner. [ ] Seven participants made up each team with an . eighth member as an alternate. Team trainers and other mine personnel traveled with the team from scenario to scenario providing support and encouragement. The teams were presented with four scenarios each day, involving High Angle Rescue, Low Angle Rescue/Medical, Hazmat, and Confined Space. All of the victims, except for one, were provided through the cooperative efforts of the Snowmass Fire Department, who also assisted with providing several evaluators. Snowmass Fire Department is to be commended for providing over 20 victims/evaluators each day to facilitate the evaluations. Training sessions were held Friday afternoon and Saturday evening to help the teams prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was held Friday evening for teams to trade hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers, etc. All mine rescue participants and spouses and registered families attended the Bar-B-Q on Sunday evening followed by an adult dance. [ ] Front row: Ray Blaisdell, Solvay; Gary Rasmussen, General Chemical; Spencer Thompson, Sabine; Jack Ervin, Western Energy. Back Row: Ken Kellywood, BHP Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP LaPlata; Elton Stanton, Jacobs Ranch; Travis Roy, Powder River Coal; Ron Neff, BHP San Juan; Steve Whaley, Bridger. Sponsors who contributed to the 1998 program financially were: Blue Mountain Energy, (Deserado Mine); Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, L.S.; and Western Environmental Associates. Glass trophy cups, with an etching of a Mine Rescue figure and the RMCMI Logo on cherry wood bases, were presented to the 10 team captains at the Monday Mine Rescue Awards Breakfast. Eight of the ten teams had a proficiency level of 3 and 2 teams achieved a proficiency level of 2.

Jan 1, 1998

G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress, Washington, D. C., presiding. PRESIDENT HERRES: If you will come to order, please, we will get started on this morning's program. This morning's program takes up the matter of mechanized mining, particularly mechanical loading. There has been considerable progress made in the West with mechanical loading, but we are interested particularly in what is being done in other fields. We are particularly fortunate in being able to have with us Mr. G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress. Mr. Southward has devoted his time for the past several years entirely to a national study of mechanized mining. He is the author of the Year Book published by the American Mining Congress, which is the authority for progress and development on mechanical loading. Mr. Southward has come here from Washington, D. C., particularly for this meeting. We have asked him to speak on the national phases of mechanized mining, and particularly on what is being clone in the East, since we are familiar with what is being done in the western field. I take great pleasure in introducing Mr. Southward. (Applause.) MR. SOUTHWARD: Mr. President and Gentlemen: Before starting on this gaper, I would like to express to all of you and to your President my appreciation in being asked to come here. It is a privilege. This question of coal mine mechanization, as you all know, is a big one. It is too big a problem for any one company to handle and it is through such meetings as these, through the co-operation of the various companies throughout the United States, that we have been able to make the progress that we have made. As Mr. Herres has said, I am not going to try to tell you gentlemen anything that is going on out here, in the West. You already know that yourselves. But he has asked me to give a brief resume of the progress that mechanization has made in the eastern coal states.

Jan 1, 1929

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

Jan 1, 1926

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Until Mr. Wood comes back, we have a gentleman with us who has been sitting in one of the back seats. He has never gotten up and showed himself, and I think we ought to call on Mr. Ryan to stand up and say two words, or a half dozen words. Mr. Ryan! (Applause.)

Jan 1, 1925

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

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

Jan 1, 1923

The 72nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President Roy Coulson, President Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming, called the meeting to order. He introduced Robert W. Wilson, President of the Institute 1975-1976. Bob's biography follows: Born August 20, 1923 in Washington, D.C.; P-47 Fighter Pilot for three years with the U.S. Air Corps, flying 101 missions, Discharged October 1945; Married Barbara J. Polley August 1945 in Golden, Colorado; Moved to Colorado in 1948; Parents of two sons, Alan born in 1948 and Russell (deceased); Now residents of Conifer, Colorado and planning retirement on ranch property in Santa Rita, New Mexico; His education consists of Elementary and High School in Arlington, Va.; Two years at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 1948; Business-Salesman for K&P, Inc. since 1949, President and Owner since 1968; Representatives for T. J. Gundlach Co., Johnson-March Corp., Ramsey Engineering Co., Omni-Lift, Smoot Company, Sweco, Inc. and FMC-Syntron; Member, RMCMI since 1957, Served as Registration Chairman, Reservation Chairman, Member of the Executive Board and Vice President for Colorado; Member, Society Mining Engineers (AIME), Colorado Mining Association, New Mexico Mining Association, Industries for Jefferson County, and Denver Coal Club.

Jan 1, 1976

By George B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of disasters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923