Search Documents

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

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

Jan 1, 1922

By I. N. Bayless

The subject of Premium Payments for Mechanical Loading was given consideration by the management, having in mind they would prove an incentive for increasing the tons per man shift, make for a lower production cost and allow the ambitious workman an opportunity to augment his earnings over the regular day wage rate, a standard of performance having been established by the operator which would be expected from the employee. Any performance above the standard is looked upon as a saving to the operator of which the employe benefited to the extent of receiving a certain percentage of the saving effected. The premium must be high enough to be worth while to the employee and low enough to in¬sure a saving to the employer. This method of sharing tends to pay men in accordance with their ability and effort. One of the principal advantages of this method of sharing is that a better class of labor may be attracted. Greater earnings furnish an incentive to increased tonnage. Workmen who prove themselves aggressive are readily noticed by supervisors, and, by shifting men to different places and to different working conditions, the crews are made more efficient and the inefficient workmen may be singled out and eliminated, thus permitting better results and better operation of the mechanical loading equipment. This is also evidenced by the fact that men become their own competitors, also working in competition with other crews. In order to do this, without neglect to the care and protection of the loading machines, men are educated to the proper handling and care of the machinery, keeping it in shape and everything clean in general, which has shown good results.

Jan 1, 1932

By Thomas Lien

Session 1 - 1 :45 p.m. June 27,1983 Session Chairman: Robert Diederich, RMCMl New Mexico Vice President MR. DIEDERICH: My name is Bob Diederich. I'm the Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Insitute from the state of New Mexico. I'm manager for the Navajo Mine down in Farmington, New Mexico and also project manager for a new mine that we're starling out called the LaPlata Mine in the same area. I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Tom Lien, who is the Director of Engineering, Western Division of AMAX Coal Company. He is responsible for mine engineering, environmental engineering, permitting, reclamation, planning, design and construction plant engineering, geology exploration, quality control and real estate for the western division. He joined AMAX Coal in 1980 as manager of preparation and quality control and was promoted to the present position in August of 1980. He has a BS in geological engineering from the University of Mines. He previously worked for Kennecott Copper Corporation in Hayden, Arizona from 1965 to 1970. He worked as a mine geologist, mill metallurgist, mine production and quality control engineer. Then he also worked for Kaiser Steel Corporation, Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine in California, 1970 to 1977. Worked as a process engineer and plant superintendent at that place. Then he was employed by Mountain States Research and Development, Tucson, Arizona, 1977 to 1980. Worked as a senior process engineer and operation superintendent. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Tom Lien who will talk to us about in-pit coal crushing. MR. LIEN: Thank you. The official title of my paper is actually: "The Potential for In-pit Crushing and Conveying in the Powder River Basin." The Powder River Basin is one of the world's greatest coal fields and will be an important source of energy for centuries to come. About one-eighth of the total coal producing in the United States comes from the Powder River Basin, and 80% of that production came out of Campbell County, Wyoming last year. The growth potential for this region is projected to be enormous. New technology as well as existing technology will make this region competitive in the decades ahead. Understanding the current status of the Powder River Basin, both the mines and the possible methods for changing the means of material movements within the mines is the subject of this paper. Each mine is unique and must be addressed specifically with respect to the application of new and innovative technology. There have been many articles written in the recent mining journals on in-pit crushing and conveying applications, including costs which are very interesting, enlightening and I recommend it to any company considering such installations. To give a general setting, coal production in the United States for 1982 was about 800,000.000 tons. This production came principally from six regions, the Applachian fields of the eastern states where bituminous and anthracite coals have been mined for almost three centuries, the Midwest located in the upper Mississippi Valley are often typified by huge dragline operations of which AMAX Coal has three right now, the Gulf Coast lignites. feeding mine-mouth power plants, the vast bituminous and sub-bituminous departments of the four-comer states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah and finally the Northern Great Plains lignite fields currently being developed and the sub-bituminous fields of Wyoming and Montana including the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. It is the darker brown right in the center of the photograph. It covers about 18,000 square miles. It's about 200 miles north to south and 90 miles east to west. The shallowest coal beds are on the east, north and northwest edges of the basin with deeper coal beds toward the center in the same kind of relationship. There are about one trillion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, that's the one with 12 zeros after it. A little bit there. It's distributed in many, many seams at varying depths to the current topography. In 1982 about 100,000,000 tons of coal were mined from this basin and 81,000,000 tons came out of Campbell County, Wyoming. The mines that are shown in this picture are basically the mines around the basin edge. The principal area that I'll be talking about is the eastern edge down where it shows Gillette and Campbell County. Geologically the Powder River Basin is the Fort Union formation. The most productive seam is called the Wyodak or Smith-Roland or the Anderson-Canyon, depending upon where you're located. There is about 75 billion tons of coal in the Wyodak of which about 23 billion are considered surface minable today. the coal is Paleocene in age, about 40,000,000 years old. It was once an old Delta region very much like the Mississippi River delta is today. During the 100,000 years that this deposit was formed peat accumulated to a thickness of about 365 feet. It was later buried and turned into sub-bituminous coal. All of the coal mined in the basin is for the electric utility industry. This coal has a typical BTU content of about 8,300 plus or minus about 4,500 BTUs. Sulfur coal is generally less than'/ %, thereby making this coal compliance coal in terms of sulfur dioxide emissions, 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

Jan 1, 1983

By W. F. Murray

Coal mining as an occupation, is hazardous under the most, ideal conditions. Confronted with this inescapable fact, every possible emphasis is placed by the Phelps Dodge Corporation, at the Dawson mines upon the employment of every means available for safeguarding its employes from the dangers attending their vocation. Accidents have a human aspect and a direct bearing upon the well-being of the workmen themselves. They cause a loss of wages, suffering and often privation of the employe and those dependent upon him. In case of death, his children are often forced into the wage earning class without preparation to fight the battles of life, with the result that the efficiency of the next generation is lowered. Dr. Jones, formerly of the war industries board, is responsible for the following statement. "Accident prevention as it is now conducted is principally a matter of education and not merely one of protection against physical hazards as frequently believed. In fact, the last ten years experience in accident prevention has demonstrated conclusively two things: 1. That three-fourths of all deaths and serious injuries in industry can be prevented. 2. In the industries doing the most efficient work, two-thirds have been accomplished thru organization and education as against one-third accomplished by means of mechanical safeguards or equipment. Experience in the past decade has conclusively proven that the work of accident prevention is not a "one man job" that satisfactory results can be secured only thru the highest measure of co-operation between the employer and employe, and this by means of organization. The employer must be vitally interested in the work if he expects to educate his men to share the responsibility with him. The men must be given a part to perform in it, if their interest is to be aroused and maintained. It is only thru organization that this is possible. In this connection it is interesting to note the results obtained by the Old Dominion Co. of Globe, Ariz., in reducing accidents after the organization of their safety department. The O. D. Co. are pioneers in the adoption of the workmens safety committees and and the results obtained by this, company after their safety work was well organized are truly wonderful. For the years 1913 to 1916, inclusive, at which time the safety work was not well organized, there were a total of 18 fatal accidents, the years 1917 to 1920, inclusive, was a period of intensive safety work, during which time there were only three fatal accidents, none having occured during 1919.

Jan 1, 1922

(The following discussion took place on this screen lecture in the dark.) MR. SHUBART: Would you give us a little .explanation as to the operation of this machine and what you are doing with it? MR. TESCHER: There is a 20- horsepower motor, rheostat, crusher, and a fan mounted on one base plate and operating on one shaft. The fan is overhung on the shaft. The only bearings you have are the bearings on each side of the crusher and the motor hearings. On one side of the ma- chine there is an opening for feeding shale. The machine is operated at 1,200 revolution per minute and as the shale is pulverized, the fan automatically exhausts fine dust from the crusher from an opening in the top of the crusher. The machine pulverizes 3,000 pounds in eight hours, reducing the materid to one hundred mesh. The last ma- chine we put in has been operating continuously fifteen hours a day for the past sixty days, without repairs of any kind. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where is the machine in operation? MR. TESCHER. At the Royal mine. We have used ordinary mining ma- chine cable in local movements of the machines. This has enabled us to have twenty-two locations throughout the mines. The mine is highly gaesous, and the machines had to be placed on intake air. MR. SHUBSRT: What type of crusher do you use? MR. TESCHER. A No. 16 Universal, operating at 1,200 revolution per minute. M. SHURART: What material do you feed to it? MR. TESCHER: We have shale three-quarters of a mile from the mine. In the winter months we have been troubled with moisture. We build a kiln and get this shale and load it into the kiln for drying and then place it into a pit car and take it into the mine. The material must be dry. We have also used slate in the mine and have had good success. The slate at the mine is fairly hard. I presume, however, that the slate will probably carry a high silica content. MR. SHUBART: Mr. Harrington claims that silica does not do the harm, as was formerly supposed. MR. TESCHER: There is still a question as to whether it is harmful or not. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any of these machines in operation closer than Aguilar? MR. TESCHER: There is one at the Alamo mine. Mr. Quealy also purchased a couple of them for use at his Wyoming mines. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Tescher regarding his rock dusting machine while it is on the table for discussion? MR. DALRYMPLE, SR.: How many men does it take to operate it? MR. TESCHER: One man operates the machine. Sometimes we put the

Jan 1, 1925

By Margaret N. Maxey

Man's capacity far fretting is endless, and no matter what difficulties we surmount, how many ideals we realize, there is a stealthy pleasure in rejecting mankind or the universe as unworthy of our approval. - Will Durant Until recently, reasons for favoring one or another energy alternative were advanced on the basis of technical considerations and economic realities. However, it is an indication of the cultural climate of our society and growing realization of why energy is our master resource that many citizens have begun to express concern about the social and ethical implications of our energy deci¬sion-making. A vivid indication of this shift toward ethical concerns is reflected in the attention being focused on conservation - even to the point of regarding it as a virtual panacea equivalent to a "free energy resource." Among others, the authors of a publication by Resources for the Future cautions us about the difficulties of defining conservation. They also point out that unrealistic expectations for achieving the high levels of conservation claimed by true believers may boomerang if, at the same time, we are morally required to maintain economic growth and robust productivity for the basic well-being of more people. In its economic meaning, conservation signifies the most economic or cost-effective applications of energy, together with other resources, in a given process or activity. To achieve conservation that is cost-effective, saving energy alone is not sufficient; the cost involved in saving the energy must be no greater than the cost of the energy that is saved. Using its thermodynamic meaning, conservation and efficiency are viewed as constrained by physical laws and measured against ideal limits set by these laws and processes. Since achieving higher levels of technical performance is not without costs, the economic meaning of conservation must be factored into technical possibilities. It is the ethical, equity and environmental meaning of conservation that concerns us here. In its third meaning, conservation consists in moderation as a value which appears inherently worthwhile both in itself and in relation to social choices dedicated to achieving distributive justice. The value of moderation seems predicated on the assumption that natural resources and the environment have fixed, finite, exhaustible capacities for satisfying human needs. Hence norms for moderating human behavior appear to require prescriptions by some authority. Such norms presuppose some agreement on "essential" uses of energy. However, the difficulties of setting behavioral norms loom large, because "... it is as difficult to determine essential energy consumption as to determine what is essential in any other phase of consumption, whether it involves food, clothing, shelter, or recreation." The ethical meaning of conversation is further complicated by a centuries-old argument over the proper exercise of stewardship - i.e., how best to develop natural resources. On the one hand, the preservationist position insists on an inviolate, "hands-off" policy and stands opposed to ongoing development of wilderness areas and mineral resources. On the other hand, the "scientific conservationist" who preaches the "gospel of efficiency" insists on development of resources based on principles of sustained-yield, multiple use and - in the case of competing claims - reserving resources or land for their "higher use." Current confusion reigns among opinion leaders in the environmental movement because they appear to have lost the genius of the original Conservation ethic, developed in the 19th century. They seem to think that conservation is preservation. The question I wish to explore is whether a single-minded, exclusive pursuit of "conservation" in its economic, thermodynamic and preservationist meanings may actually do more harm than good in serving the ethical goals of conservation. There

Jan 1, 1986

By S. W. Farnham

Those who remember the years of patient effort and the slow results obtained in the first introduction of electrical coal cutters and locomotives will, I think, admit that mechanical loading of coal is unquestionably being established at a much more rapid rate than any previous application of machinery to reduce manual labor in mines. There are many operators who consider the progress of the loaders today as slow, but considering the number of years it took to thoroughly establish electrical coal cutters and locomotives, and comparing it with the short time that the mechanical loader has been on the market, and the results that have been obtained today, they will admit, I think, that the progress of the latter is much more rapid. It is about 35 years since the advent of the electrical coal cutter and electric locomotive. Their use has brought about these improved conditions, increased tonnage per mine and other features, which are of assistance to the installation of mechanical loaders. The management and the technical staff in practically all of the American mines are trained in the use of electrical machinery and understand its operation, care and maintenance. . There is frequently, a surplus of electrical power and wiring available to take care of the small requirements of the electrical loader. The mechanical loader, therefore, starts today with the ground prepared for it. Those manufacturing companies who have had years of experience in the design and construction of mining machinery, know in a large measure what to incorporate in their designs to make the parts of the new type of machine effectively strong and to operate with efficiency under the severe conditions encountered in mining service. All these advantages greatly assist the success of a new type of machine such as the mechanical loader. In spite of these advantages, however, there are bound to be some failures. All new types of loaders have to be developed. We hear of some that are a success and some that are set aside. The field of application of each type and its limitations first must be determined by actual operation. The earlier loaders had to be changed and improved in design as weaknesses developed. Not all of the new types of coal loaders have been built by mining machinery manufacturers of long experience, and the lack of experience in this line is responsible for some of the early failures. The coal mining company staffs and also those of the loader companies had to learn what the operating factors were that made mechanical loading a success. The difference in results obtained by loaders in different properties under similar physical conditions indicates that the mine management is a very large, if not the major factor, affecting the efficiency of mechanical loading. Many articles have been written on the question of loading. The subject has been quite fully discussed at recent coal meetings and in the technical press. It is not always as easy or simple a matter to form conclusions as may first appear as to one's own particular loading problem. Mechanical loading is a comparatively new art, and many companies while claiming that loaders are quite successful, do not have an accurate line on the actual saving they are affecting. Many of them have only a few of the factors taken into account in their costs. Many loaders have been generally bought without very careful consideration given to all details and except where extremely favorable conditions prevail, failure resulted. When contemplating the installation of mechanical loading, one naturally desires to select the type of loader that will, fit his mining conditions. The things

Jan 1, 1924

By S. W. Farnham

We have listened to many papers describing mechanical loaders, and systems of mining planned to increase their efficiency. We have become familiar with the various types and in a general way, their capacities and limitations. Messrs. F. E. Cash and E. H. Johnson in Bulletin 17 of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, subject Coal Mining Investigations, have a very complete review of the loading situation then. Mr. A. W. Dickinson, in a recent paper before this Institute, gave a later illustrated review of mechanical loaders. On page 28 of Cash & Johnson's paper is a list of loading machines to which might be added to bring the list down to date, the following: Under Digging and Loading Machines The Goodman Power Shovel Under Scraper Loaders The Goodman 436-G-3 125 H. P. three drum Scraper loader The Goodman 35 H. P. Entry loader and the Two Drum 125 H. P. Hoist built by Vulcan of Denver for scrapers Under Shaking Trough Conveyors The Eickhoff Conveyor The Link-Belt Conveyor The McCarty Duck-bill which is really a digging and loading element built to attach to the end of and operated by a reciprocating conveyor. The outstanding feature in this line of work in the past few years is the fact that a few very successful operations have been worked out on a large scale; the officers and staff in charge of this work have gone into details very thoroughly and altered and improved, in many cases, their mine equipment and mining methods, and by the exercise of persistent energy and intelligent effort, in the face of frequent difficulties and discouragements, they have attained results that are far ahead of the average loader operation. The coal mining industry owes much to these men for the pioneering and development of mechanical loading; their investigations in transport, shooting, shearing, snubbing, cleaning, and production costs, the results of which they have given freely and frequently to the public, are of great value. Foremost among the pioneers in this work are the Union Pacific Coal properties, the Quealy properties, the Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company and in the Central West, the Union Colliery Company of Illinois. On the other hand, in the great majority of installations, one loader, or possibly two or three loaders have been started in a given operation and through failure to make the proper effort to improve their transportation and work out the systems to utilize their loading machines, the loaders have not shown appreciable savings and in many cases, the installation has failed. It has been frequently stated in many meetings where loading has been discussed, that the idea of mechanical loading must first be sold not only to the operating staff but to the entire personnel of any company where installations are made. The problems involved in the successful application of this equipment are such that it requires enthusiastic and wholehearted teamwork on the part of everyone connected with the work and when difficulties arise, they must be ready to exercise initiative and try new ways oftentimes of overcoming impediments. The closest attention now is given to the question of economics how much will a loader reduce the cost of coal in any particular situation? Without fear of successful contradiction, I believe that experience up to date has unquestionably shown that where the shovel type of loader can be properly used, it produces in wide work, the cheapest coal of any loading device yet brought onto the market. Naturally there is a considerable difference between the results from different makes of shovels.

Jan 1, 1926

By D. J. Griffiths

Beyond doubt it is practically impossible to eliminate all chances of accidents from falls. Mother Earth is not going to give up her treasures without some sacrificing on our part. This particular question ranks among the important subjects connected with coal-mining, and has been given less attention as a factor of life- and limb-destroyer than any other cause. The single fatalities which happen create very little attention; nevertheless, when counted up at the end of the year, they outnumber the unfortunate ones that are mowed down by the wholesale by mine explosions. Fire-damp and coal dust were often considered the greatest evils in coal-mining. All records, however, prove this conclusion to be wrong. The second annual report of the Bureau of Mines gives the loss of life caused by falls of coal and roof in 1910 as 1,310, and in 1911 as 1,321. The reports of Pennsylvania mine inspectors for a period of thirty-three years show that 59.38 per cent of all the accidents underground were caused by falls of roof and coal. Also, the Bureau of Mines shows in its last issue on fatalities that accidents from fall of roof and coal killed more men than any other two causes combined, and that they account for more than half of the deaths under- ground. It seems we are getting too accustomed, taking too many things for granted, running too many risks, trusting too much for the best, and preparing too little for the worst. We must remove the cause; then the effects will cease. However, I can see that a better day is here. The main damaging factors underground are falls of roof and sides. A bad roof is tender and lacks the adhesive qualities to sustain its own weight over comparatively small areas. A roof of any character which is frequently penetrated by well-defined slips and cleats, is characterized as a treacherous roof. The carelessness of men has been one of the main causes of most of the accidents in mining as well as in any other industries. Three Grades of Miners Miners can be classified into three distinct grades, to-wit: the experienced and careful, the experienced and reckless, and the inexperienced. The accidents which the first class usually meet with occur through the carelessness of their co-workers, as well as through accidents which are termed unforeseen, such as falling roof between timbers, and between the timbers and the face of the coal. This may have 'previously given evidence of being absolutely sound and safe, but be released by invisible slips or by sudden outburst of occluded gases in large quantities, as we term big blowers or feeders,

Jan 1, 1913

Please note all Proceedings of the Institute were taken verbatim by stenotypists from Hyatt & Associates of Denver and editing has been minimal. MR. MORTENSEN: On behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I take great plea¬sure in saying good morning to you at Vail. With a few clouds in the sky, at least we won't get sunburned. We won't have to worry about our kids in the swimming pool, perhaps. It is delightful for me to have been able to have represented the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute for the year 1982-1983. This has been our 71st year and this is our 79th meeting. In recognizing the attendance here, that dinner we had last night, and some of our entertainment must have gotten to some of us, or it is a little early. But I'm sure as the day goes on, and with the speakers outlined, it will be very beneficial for those who do attend. We do appreciate your attendance. I'd first like to make an introduction of our head table. Doris Finnie, she is our executive secretary. As most of you are aware, Gussie Whiteside retired as secretary. This will be the first time since the Institute started that there has not been a Whiteside present at one of our conventions. I'm sure Gussie would appreciate any calls or letters that any of you would care to make to her. Doris, I might add, has been a great help to me and all of the people who have been working on the program for the Institute this past year. There's been lots of reorganization and we are very pleased with Doris's ability to take hold from Gussie without any waves. Much credit must be given to you Doris for this and we do appreciate the help you have given us and believe me she has kept us out of trouble. Next, we have Art Neill. He is our vice president of the Institute from Montana and he also works with Western Energy Company. We appreciate the help that all of these session leaders and chairmen give to us. We have other names on the head table, but they will fill in as the morning goes on, so we won't bother you with any of those at this time. To set the stage for business, first I would like to call on Doris for a motion to approve the minutes of last year. MS. FINNIE: Thank you, Vernal. Mr. President, I suggest that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the members refer to pages 9 through 80 of the Proceedings for the 78th regular meeting of RMCMI, as published MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Doris. Do we have a motion to so approve? MR. LINVILLE: I so move. MR. MORTENSEN: Loren Linville so approved. Do we have a second? MR. GARR: Second. MR. MORTENSEN: All in favor say aye. (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Those opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. I'm sure glad we didn't have to read those 80 pages. Is Doug Hammer in the audience? He was going to give us a list of new members of the Coal Institute and ask for your approval. But because of his absence, the names will be listed so that you can read them at a later date, I will entertain a motion that we approve the new members who have joined the Institute. Do I so have a motion? MR. BERNSTROM: I would make that motion. MR. GARR: I second. MR. MORTENSEN: Do we have any questions? All in favor¬ (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. Next, we'd like to proceeed with our Nominating committee report from the chairman, George Nugent, and the election of next year's officers. George, would you please take the stand? MR. NUGENT: Mr. President, and members of the Institute, your Nominating committee consists of five past presidents of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From Colorado Roy Coulson; from New Mexico, Bob Wilson; from Utah, Bob

Jan 1, 1983

By Wm. Monay

MR. MONAY (Vice President Kinney Coal Co., Scofield, Utah): The past year and a half has witnessed a series of coal mine disasters in Utah and Wyoming, concentrated into the short space of a few months, following a long period of years in which the industry was comparatively free from devastating calamities. The natural result has been a hysterical activity on the part of bureaus, commissions and professional reformers who know little about coal mining from a practical standpoint. This activity has been met by the industry in Utah with an attitude of submission, no doubt the result of the fear of being misunderstood by the public. But it is my firm conviction that the lives and property of the coal industry will find their surest guaranty of protection in the humanity, and in the self interest of those operating and working in the mines, rather than in governmental regulation. Inelastic, inflexible blanket statutes and rules will simply stifle and hamper the initiative and progress of our industry in working out its own salvation, under the varying and changing conditions of different localities, different conditions, and in different mines. We who have spent our lives in digging in the mines and operating them, know more about this business than anyone else and I believe it is time for us to speak up and no longer sit meekly by while inexperienced bureaus and unskilled commissions make up laws, rules and regulations for us which when made are on the books to stay, even though in a short time they may prove inapplicable, in whole or in part, or be superseded by something different, and which in some cases create new dangers or lull us into a false sense of security. Shortly after the Castle Gate explosion in March, 1924, a new set of safety rules was issued by the Indus- trial Commission of the State of Utah to become effective July 1st of the same year, the most important of which prohibits the use of black powder in any mine--gaseous or non-gaseous; prohibits the use of open flame lamps in any mine-gaseous or non-gaseous; and requires that rock dusting in all main haulage ways as far as the freezing point and required that all mining machines be equipped with water to be applied while cutting. These rules have been characterized as "Utah's Monument to her Dead Miners" in a large poster spread broadcast over the country from an office in New York that styles itself the Association for Labor Legislation. In reviewing the coal mining history of the State of Utah, in the year 1900, a serious disaster occurred at Winter Quarters. The cause of the same is believed to be an explosion of powder that was stored in the mine, which was a common practice in the early days, and from that time until the Castle Gate disaster, March 8, 1924, a period of some twenty-four years, no explosion of any kind occurred in this district. During all this period open lamps were used, considerable black powder was used, rock dusting was unheard of, sprinkling with water was very generally done-all without any catastrophe. Since the adoption of the new rules, we have 'had a very violent explosion at the Carbon Fuel mine in Spring Canyon. At the time of this explosion, 3,000 feet of the main slope had been rock dusted several times between July 1st and September 21st. The second left entry, which is a main haulage way, a distance of 3,000 feet was completely rock dusted on the date of the explosion. This mine is not considered extremely gaseous, yet an explosion as violent as that of the Castle Gate mine occurred. Some thirty men who had been loading coal in various parts of the mine on this Sun- day, the day of the explosion, and other men employed in rock dusting the second left entry, had just left the mine a little while before it occurred, and no abnormal condition in the mine was noted. At the time of the explosion five machine men were in the mine.

Jan 1, 1925

By Paul Schmechel

This time of year, our lawn is host to goodly numbers of birds - robins, English sparrows, finches of various flavors and some whose names I don't know. We lure them with a feeder in our backyard and I'm sure Patti and I spend several minutes a day watching them through a picture window that overlooks their coming and going. And, while the picture window supplies us with a constantly changing view, it does not treat our winged friends nearly so kindly. You see, at certain times of the day, reflections on our window feed back to our birds a mirror image of the backyard. Lifting off from the bird feeder, they see before them what is behind them. And, not infrequently they fly straight into the window. They stop abruptly, of course. It has to be quite a shock to discover that what is behind you is not the same as what is in front. At this point, I might be tempted to say something about bird brains - except for the fact that we humans also are prone to deceptive images thrown up by the past. Today, I think we hear a great many voices painting past images as they look to the future. We hear that the price of oil soon will rise to its former elevated position; the price of copper will bounce back; a hungry world soon will escalate the demand for food and our agricultural industry will be back in the black. In fact, we can hear hope from many voices telling us that our major resource-rich, basic industries are poised to fly up. I can hope that the voices are right, but I keep thinking that those expressions come from people seeing false images. Most certainly, it is more comfortable to see the past, rather than acknowledge that the world economy is being restructured and that the restructuring is affecting the Rocky Mountain states profoundly and negatively. The worst mistake we could make may be to place too much credence in the images from our past. We can be lulled into a dangerous complacency. What we need is a tighter belt and the will to do some serious bootstrapping. Before proceeding, I would make two points: First, it is not my intent to be a prophet of doom. But I do think we need some healthy doses of realism, if we are to avoid the shock of flying into a false future. Second, by now you have detected that I have choosen to diversify the assignment you handed me on utility diversification. As I proceed, you soon will see that the roots of diversification for many utilities lie in the subject that we ponder now. We could begin in many places, but let's start with energy. It is pervasive in our businesses and industries. We all use it. And, despite conventional economic wisdom, we are using less of it. The price is down, but we have not reverted to our profligate ways. That is true whether you look at the industrial customer or the residential consumer. As a nation and as a people, we have learned to do more work with less energy. A few statistics illustrated the point. If we use 1973 as the base year, energy use in the United States has declined almost I percent. If we examine the year of peak energy use, 1979, the decline approaches 7 percent. Let's look at it another way. In 1973, for every dollar of gross national product, the United States consumed 27,100 Btu of energy. Last year, 1985, the comparable figure was 20,700 Btu - a decline of 24 percent. So, not only are we using less energy, but we are using it more efficiently. Even though the price of energy has declined, we are unlikely to use substand with natural gas and petroleum consumption. Use of natural gas has dropped almost 21 percent since 1973. Petroleum consumption has declined 1 I percent since 1973 and almost 19 percent since 1978, when the U.S. used a record quantity of petroleum. We also know there's been no appreciable change in amounts of oil and gas used since 1981. We weathered both a sharp recession and a healthy recovery without altering the amount of those fuels used. That the use of oil and gas dropped sharply, while the total use of energy merely slumped a bit is easy to explain. The use of coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity from 1973 through 1985 increased almost 48 percent. Some people will tell you that the large decrease in the price of oil and gas will result in increased demand that will displace coal, nuclear and hydropower. In turn, demand will force the price of oil and gas upward. I doubt it. From the poking around I've done on the subject, I suspect there may be some short-term displacements, but they will be, for the most part, cancelled out by declining use among existing customers. For instance, we all know what has happened in the automotive sector. In 1973, the average U.S. automobile made 13.1 miles to the U.S. gallon of gasoline. In 1984, the most recent available statistic, the average auto made 16.94 miles to the gallon. That's a 19 percent improvement. Because annual miles driven per automobile are essentially unchanged over the period and the number of cars on the road is not increasing, we are witnessing a drop in this segment of the petroleum market. That trend will continue. Now, let's look at energy consumption patterns still another way. Between 1973 and 1985, consumption in the residential and commercial sectors of our economy increased total energy use by 11.2

Jan 1, 1986

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

By James J. Bryja

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

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1931

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: The paper of Mr. Emrick will now be open for discussion for about twenty minutes. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. EMRICK: There is some question that may have occurred to you at different times, that is how are you going to tell when the bits are properly made? A fairly good rule to go by is when the used bits come out of the mine, if half of them are bent and half of them are broken, the average is pretty good MR. GEO. B. PRYDE (Union Pacific Coal Company): I would like to ask Mr. Emrick if he has any figures as to the saving of Dower with the different styles of its. MR. EMRICK: I suppose you mean chisel point bits and pick point bits? MR. PRYDE: Yes. MR. EMRICK: So far as I have been able to learn, the only reason why chisel point bits are used is to prevent coring that might be done by the cutter chain. The pick point bit, of course, is the proper thing to use. It can be used when the position of the cutter links in the cutter chain is right. I do not know of any figures which give power consumption ratings on the use of pick point and chisel point bits, but there are tests and ratings, etc., which have been taken- which have been tested as against different bits, which have been given proper clearances against bits not having been given proper clearances, and they will run,-in their saving in power, they will run 20 to 25 per cent. MR. A. C. WATTS (Chief Engineer, Utah Fuel Company) : I would like to ask Mr. Emrick if he has any record showing the saving in power on using the alloy steel chisel bits. I know that several experiments have been made; I do not recall the figures now, but we had a very decided saving in power. MR. EMRICK: I haven't any of the records. Do you think that is because of the steel that has been used? MR. WATTS: Well, they were all sharpened by the same man and used in the same machine, and at the same shop. I do not know the composition. It is "Red Star" Vanadium that I had in mind. MR. EMRICK: I have not seen any records. Some companies are using the tool steel bits because they stand up a little bit better. MR. BENEDICT SHUBART (Secretary) : I was going to ask Mr. Emrick about that question. There is one company that does not recommend tempering the bits. They recommend using not exactly self-hardening steel, but one that is bard enough without quenching-they use 80-90-point car- bon but about a 70-point manganese, not exactly self-hardening steel, but they do not temper this at all. Will Mr. Emrick state if a steel of that kind could be worked in the bit sharpening machine that his company makes, as it

Jan 1, 1925

The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Mr. John Peperakis, President Dear Mr. Peperokis: Following is the report of the Treasurer from May 19, 1956 to May 3 1, 1957: RECEIPTS [Cash on hand May 19, 1956. ................................... $2,209.64 Dues ........................................ $ 810.00 Registrations, Banquet, Tickets, etc. 1,992.75 Contributions ................... ............ 1,490.00 Interest .................................... 27.60 4,320.35 $6,529.99]

Jan 1, 1957

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 C. A. Allen

In presenting a summary of the uses of fine and pulverized coal the writer has borne in mind that we are not trying to determine what a combustion engineer should know but we are only trying to find out in what ways the consumption of slack can be stimulated. First discussing the use of powdered coal it can be stated that it has passed the first experimental stage but is still capable of much development and improvement. It has already found successful application in stationary and locomotive boilers, cement kilns, calcining furnaces, reverberatory smelting furnaces and many other types of furnaces, such as open hearth furnaces and annealing furnaces. For stationary boilers it seems to have been thoroughly demonstrated that powdered coal is more efficient than stoker installations. Over-all efficiences of boiler and furnace in stoker installations of the best type run from 70 to 76 per cent; whereas the efficiency of powdered coal installations averages slightly over 80 per cent. However, due to the increased cost of pulverized coal, the increased efficiency of these installations over stokers, from a money stand-point, will not be more than 1 or 2 per cent. The fusing of the ash in pulverized coal installations has given some trouble but apparently is easily overcome, on the other hand the fine ash, which is carried along with the draft, causes trouble both in the boiler and by settling on surrounding buildings or ground. Offsetting the disadvantages the great advantages of pulverized coal for stationary boilers seem to be: First-the ease with which a change in the load on the boiler can be taken care of. Second-when a boiler is cut out for a short period the "stand-by" losses are much less and, Third-a much poorer grade of fuel can be used. In many cases where pulverized coal has been used it has replaced slack coal which is of little advantage to the coal operator. However,, in other places it has replaced gas or oil and this is where the coal man is interested. Pulverized coal has the same advantages as the liquid or gas fuel but the question as to which is preferable depends on their relative cost at the point of use. In small stationary boilers where stokers are not used, very frequently the larger sizes of coal are, and it would be an advantage to the coal industry for them to be converted so as to burn pulverized coal, but so far there are only records of a few of such small installations having been a success and there is apparently room for a large amount of experimentation. In furnaces, such as smelting and assaying furnaces, annealing furnaces, etc., slack coal is not used and where pulverized coal has been installed it nearly always replaces fuel oil or gas. Just how much increased consumtion of coal can be made by pulverizing it for use in furnaces of this type can not be determined but it seems worthy of investigation. For locomotive boilers pulverized coal has found some application up to date but where it was being used in the United States it was stopped when we entered the war. In Brazil, however, the Central Railway has been using pulverized coal for locomotives with excellent results. If it could be possible to apply it to locomotive use where fuel oil is now used, or the larger sizes of coal, it would certainly make a big difference in the slack situation. Now as to the uses of slack coal without pulverizing. The writer's investigations lead him to believe that the greatest opportunities in this direction are in the line of increasing its use by apartment houses and small home owners. In fact in looking into the subject I found that a number of men in Salt Lake City are using run of mine coal in the usual type of house furnaces, some of them by separating the fines and wetting them down before feeding to the furnace claim they get no loss whatever through the grate. However, for best results with fine coal different types of furnaces must be installed and for apartment houses it would seem necessary to have either a small automatic stoker or else spray the fine coal in with an air blast from

Jan 1, 1922