Search Documents

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 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

?Go for the Coal? Simulator Training Outline ?Training Adult Learners ?Benefits of Simulator Training ?Simulator Training at Kennecott Energy -Training Priorities -Data Utilization ?Questions

Jan 1, 2004

D. HARRINGTON: Owing to lack of funds, the United States Bureau of Mines have made no experiments in the Bruceton mines in the use of mudite. MR. McAULIFFE: I doubt that mudite cam be delivered at fifty cents a ton and that a mile of heading can be treated with mudite for ten dollars. You could not dig a ton of sand out of a sand hank for that money. L. C. CLARE: The tram road leading to Wattis mine crosses a shale bed and it is easy to screen the shale through a %-inch sieve and load it into a mine car. W. J. REID: A slow trip passing through a mudited entry will dislodge practically no dust, a rapid trip will make air disturbance enough to coat the cars with fine dust. MR. PRYDE: We have used mudite on stoppings around a fire in Reliance and for two months thought they were getting good results, but the fire was found to be drawing air and to be spreading. This mudite was smeared over the stoppings with a trowel. After this apparently failed we used dry adobe.

Jan 1, 1925

[Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 148 Andalex Resources, Inc 99 Big Sky Coal Company 118 Canyon Fuel Company, LLC 100 Coal Age 141 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 103 Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co 104 Copper Mountain Resort 139 Cove Shoe Co., Inc 116, 117 Dakota Coal Company 105]

Jan 1, 2000

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

Article I1 of the RMCMI Bylaws reads: Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classs, consisting of active members, life members and senior members, who shall have such rights, privileges and qualifications as these bylaws may provide. The names of all active, life and senior members, together with current mailing addresses, follow. [Lt. Jay Abbott M. L. FOSS Co. 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Lt. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Are Denver, CO 80207 ]

Jan 1, 1986

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

[Arsulich, Thomas Mechanical Engineer, S.A.E. House, Laramie, Wyoming Barrett, A. Lee joy Mfg., Co., Research Engineer, Franklin, Pa. Bartlett, Rulon Salesman, 265 S. Seventh East, Salt Lake City, Utah Beauchamp, Paul N Goodman Mfg. Co., Sales Engineer, 2509 S. Monroe, Denver, Colorado Boyle, J. J Mine Superintendent, Roundup, Montana ?Burnell, Patrick H Gebo, Wyoming]

Jan 1, 1950

By James F. Howe

Modern civilization is centered around a small group of essential occupations, the three principal ones which are agriculture, mining and manufacturing. Agriculture might be called the most important of the three, as it has to do directly with the supply of food for the human race. Mining, however, is certainly next in importance, as it furnishes the supply of fuel and many of the raw materials used in manufacturing. Without mining, modern machinery and many industrial operations would be impossible. Mining takes advantage of the, natural resources in fuel and minerals that lie underneath the surface of mother earth, and while at times some of these metals are hard to find and mines come and go, mining must continue to increase. Mining is no longer a haphazard proposition but one calling for careful study and complete plans of operation for years to come. The shafts, power houses, rock dump crusher, concentrator, and other machinery must be located advantageously in order to enable owners to make a profit. Many tons of rock or mineral must be mined frequently to get one ton of concentrated metallic ore or metal itself. Economy in mining is just as essential as it is in manufacturing. The mining engineer of today is called upon to utilize every branch of engineering, and not only, is a wide: range of knowledge required, but ingenuity to meet the unusual conditions which are constantly arising from week to week. On account of the wide variety of information required by the mining engineer, some things with which he is in almost daily contact may be passed over with only a small amount of attention, provided everything is going well, in order that time and attention may be focused on what might be termed the more important features of mining operations. Because competition has become keener than ever, owing to overproduction at times of certain minerals, it becomes a matter of first, importance to understand as far as possible the factors which enter into the cost of production of any mineral which may be mined. In such times of overproduction, the high cost mine is forced to close down while the low cost mine may, if desired, be kept running constantly. In keeping a cost record, wire rope on account of its high first cost 19 coming into the lime light, and a comparison of records of one mine with another is now frequently made in order to see whether the rope service is satisfactory or not. Every rope maker, on the other hand, is interested in seeing that the rope which he produces gives the maximum possible return for the money invested. Modern mining owes much of its success to the use of wire rope for hoisting materials from beneath the surface of the ground. Deep mining would be impossible without the use of wire rope as a means of hoisting. A study, therefore, of rope problems in mining work and a discussion of the points which are beneficial to maximum life will enable the mining engineer, manager, or superintendent to keep his costs down to the minimum while at the same time he provides a suitable and sufficient safety factor for operations at all times. Mining might be defined as the extraction of coal, metallic ores, or minerals from below the surface of the ground. This definition does not cover what is known as, open pit operations or quarrying but covers the

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 2005

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

Jan 1, 2006

By John Bevan

In a discussion of the personal dangers that may arise from mine gases, it is necessary to take into consideration the gases which may result from an underground fire, or a fire in or about the downcast shaft, and the methods of avoiding or minimizing the danger arising therefrom. In all cases of the combustion of carbonaceous material such as coals and timber, carbon dioxide and water vapor are formed. In cases where the air supply is limited, some carbon monoxide is produced, the quantity varying with the readiness with which the oxygen from the air can get into intimate contact with the consuming carbon; in addition to these products there may be produced large volumes of irritating fumes consisting of unconsumed vapors' distilled from the burning material. Apart from the physical distress that may be caused by the irritant action of the fumes, the chief danger to life underground arising from a fire in or about the downcast shaft or intake airways is due to the carbon monoxide which the smoke is almost certain to contain. The physiological effects of this gas have already been discussed in mining papers and ref¬erence should be made to this. The prevention of fires at the surface near to the mouth of the downcast shaft, or in the shaft itself, or at the bottom of the shaft, usually lies outside the duties of the fireboss. An outbreak of fire at such places would, however, immediately foul the air current passing into the mine, and, assuming the men were in the mine, create a situation demanding urgent attention of the fireboss. As a rule, each case of fire creates its own problems, but in all cases the guiding principle should be to restrict the poison-laden 'air to the smallest part of the mine that is practicable, by opening separation doors, or breaking down selected stoppings at the most accessible points near the seat of the fire, so that the gases and smoke may pass directly into the return and so to surface. In the case of a shaft fire it will have the effect of fouling both shafts and in the case of a fire in an intake airway, both roadways leading to the shafts. It requires the use of some judgment. Therefore, in circumstances as to whether men inside the mine should attempt to escape to the shafts or should remain in the mine, and attempt to protect themselves from the poisonous air by suitably short circuiting the air-current and retiring from the main air-ways. In order to make such restraint easier, it is very desirable that all mines should be equipped with telephone communication from all sections of the mine to the surface so that men in the mine may be informed of what is being done at the surface to secure their safety, or instructed as to what they themselves should do. In cases of fire in or about the shafts, the question of the reversal of the air-current will probably arise. Should this be decided on by the management at the surface, the fireboss in the mine may have to give some attention to the effects which this action will have on the circulation of the

Jan 1, 1922

By R. A. Marshall

Much has been written by men connected with the coal mining industry, and mining laws have been enacted for the safety of the men employed in the mines, and for the protection of property connected therewith. It seems almost impossible for anyone to select a subject that has not already been read, discussed and put into effect, especially in the coal mines of Western America. There is, however, a subject of much interest to the mining public, and to which I have given a great deal of study and consideration, and which I believe will be received by this convention, and will be given due consideration in the future in applying it to the safety of the mine,- "Efficiency in Shot Firing." Beginning with 1865, and for a period of 28 years in the state of Colorado, the annual reports of the chief inspectors show that 1159 coal miners were killed in the following manner: Five hundred eighty-two by falls of rock and coal ; 517 by gas and dust explosions; 6o by careless handling of explosives and the shooting of coal by the, individual, miner. It is my firm belief that 75 per cent of these fatal accidents might have been avoided, if a safe and proper shot firing system had been installed, at each and every mine. This may sound unreasonable, but I believe that the blasting of coal by the individual miner, and the use of black powder, squibs and fuse has, in reality, caused the death of many miners, from shock after blasting, the shooting out 'of timbers, and working in powder smoke, which fatal accidents were attributed to falls of rock or coal. These conditions led the people of Colorado, through their representatives of the General Assembly of Colorado, to enact a new coal mining law, and in 1913 this law became effective, containing twelve sections devoted to the subject of Efficiency in the System of Shot Firing. During the period 1913 to 1920, the employment of a shot firer, the use of permissible. powder, and the electric hand battery has resulted in safer mines, safer miners and safer shot firers, and I believe every coal mine in the state should employ first-class, certified shot firers, use permissible powder and fire the shots with an electric hand battery. I believe where gas generates in dangerous quantities, which is generally determined by inspection of the mine, and the daily report, the shooting in. such a mine should be done by electric battery located outside of the mine. Where permissible powder is used, I have seen the shot firer start down the mine with a belt around his waist containing one hundred caps, a safety lamp to test for gas, and an open light to ignite the fuse. Would it not be much safer for the shot firer if he used the electric hand battery? In non-gaseous mines where black powder is used, I have. seen the miners carry fuse into the mine, and shot firers have been known to partly tamp the holes, which was

Jan 1, 1921

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

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

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 C. P. Crawford

Bureau of Mines Technical Paper 172, by S. H. Katz and H. C. Porter, entitled "Effects of Moisture on the Spontaneous Heating of Stored Coal", says at the outset, "Spontaneous fires in storage piles of bituminous coal' have been the source of trouble and loss since the industrial utilization of coal began. In Europe the idea arose that spontaneous combustion is more liable to happen during wet weather than during dry. Statements favoring or opposing this idea have crept into the literature. Conflicting conclusions, based on experiment as well as opinions based on observations of various degrees of reliability, are given in most of the recorded discussions of the subject. "Because of the uncertainty of the effect of moisture and its seeming importance among the conditions that affect spontaneous combustion in stored coal, the work described in this paper was undertaken by the Bureau of Mines. The experiments showed that a coal from Illinois oxidized faster when dry, whereas a sample of Pittsburgh coal oxidized faster when moist. These discordant results and similarly inconsistent results from the observations of different investigators may be coupled with the fact that under actual conditions of, storing, both coal and air always contain a considerable amount of moisture." The foregoing report of the investigations of the Bureau demonstrates that the mystery of spontaneous combustion has not yet been solved. This fact adds to the fascination of the subject. I became interested in the matter about ten years ago in observing what was probably one of the best exhibitions of this phenomenon. The old dump at Castle Gate No. 1 Mine contained boney coal and track cleanings generally. In winter when snow fell upon this old dump, the snow was soon melted by the heat of the dump which was comparatively warm at all times. Within 48 hours afterward little blue flames were in evidence on the surface of the pile. Few of the gas feeders were sufficiently constant to maintain a steady flame at any given point, but shifting emissions of gas were ignited one by another, resulting in a continuous popping and apparent running about of the flames. Another interesting exhibition of spontaneous heating was to be seen a few years ago in the storage coal piles of the local sugar factories. This coal was piled in concrete lined pits and the latter were filled with water. However, or this occasion the coal extended above the surface of the water. At every plant where this condition existed the coal was affected heating, and in each case the affected area was in a plane horizontal to and from 8 to 1.4 inches above the water level. The height of the hot area above the surface of the water appeared to be affected by the fineness of the coal. It is well known that oily rags have a tendency to heat when allowed to accumulate in some location protected from free air circulation. For some reason, as yet unknown, this does not apply to petroleum or its derivatives. Now, the most common explanation of spontaneous combustion is that the combustible material oxidizes by being brought into contact with air in the presence of moisture, the theory being that the moisture acts as a catalytic agent. My theory is that spontaneous combustion is due to oxidation of combustible matter by free oxygen carried in solution by a liquid, the oxidation taking place only as, when, and at the place where this oxygen is released from solution by the evaporation of the liquid. Also, this oxidation takes place to some degree regardless of the condition of the combustible-whether it be lump coal, coal dust, straw, wheat flour, coke, or any other combustible but, as the speed of oxidation is directly influenced by temperature, it follows that spontaneous combustion only becomes noticeable or serious in cases where the resulting heat' cannot escape as fast as it is generated.

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1982