Search Documents

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when made are on the books to stay, even though in a short time they may prove inapplicable, in whole or in part, or be superseded by something different, and which in some cases create new dangers or lull us into a false sense of security.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 T. H. Brien, O&apos

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

Jan 1, 1923

By T. H. Butler

The two most talked of questions in the mining industry today are rock dusting and mechanical loading. The one as a matter of safety, and the other as a matter of economy, and both are of vital interest to the mining fraternity. Rock dusting and other safety methods will be dealt with by others at this meeting, so I will confine my few remarks to the matter of mechanical loading. I will not attempt to tell you what mechanical loaders are doing in the different mining fields throughout the country, or what they should do, but will endeavor to give you an outline of the work being done with mechanical loaders in No. 4 Mine of the Union Pacific Coal Company, at Hanna, Wye. In order that you may better understand and be in a position to follow me it will be necessary to cite the conditions under which we are working. and the type of loaders in use. The seam pitches from 14 to 17 degrees, and is normally 32 feet in thickness, and is overlaid with a soft sandstone roof. The panel system of working is used, planes being driven on the pitch, and rooms driven on the strike. Owing to faults being encountered planes are driven between the faults, and the. rooms on either side are in some instances 800 to 1,000 feet in depth. Rooms are advanced eight feet in height, and 32 feet in width, by hand loaders and .Toy mechanical loaders, and when driven to the boundary,, 18 feet of the remaining 24 is loaded out with Thew electric shovels, and six feet left to protect the roof. In January, 1916 the company installed a Type 1 Thew shovel, equipped with a 1 1/4-yard dipper, and in July, 1917, they installed a Type 0 Thew electric shovel, equipped with a 1-yard dipper, and in the year 1918 two additional Type 0 Thew shovels, equipped with a 1-yard dipper, were installed, making a total of four Thew shovels for this mine. The introduction of these shovels caused the employees much concern, and like all departures from the old methods of mining, met with indifference by some and open antagonism by others, so that for some time they results obtained were not satisfactory. However, by constant supervision and changes in the method of haulage the results obtained at present, while not entirely satisfactory, are much better and the production and costs are reasonably good. The Thew shovels in use are mounted on traction wheels with swivel axle and move. in all directions by their own power, and while the weight of each is approxi¬mately 20 tons, they are not as cumbersome as. one would think and are easily operated. The system used in working these shovels is to shoot the coal clown ahead of the shovels and maintain two tracks, two cars being used on each track so that shovel is loading on one track while driver is, changing cars on the other. When place is finished the shovel is run back to the first cross-cut by its own power and lowered to the next room with block and tackle, the roof coal in cross-cut being shot down to a height of 16 feet to allow passage of the boom. With better results from the Thew shovels we soon realized that it was necessary to find some method of developing rooms faster than was being done with hand loaders in order to keep the Thew shovels in working places, and in November, 1923, the company purchased from the Joy Machine Company two Type 4 B U Joy loaders, and the installation of same met with the same indifference and antagonism from the employees as did the Thew

Jan 1, 1924

At 10 a. m. registration was commenced and completed. At 11:30 a. m. the meeting was called to order by the President, William Littlejohn. There was no unfinished business, new business nor reports of committees. The minutes of the previous meeting, as published in the proceedings, were approved. The report of the Treasurer was referred to the Auditing Committee who were auditing the report of the previous year. At 2 p. m., President William Little- john called the meeting to order for study session. Mr. J. Samuel Pyeatt, the new president of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, ad- dressed the Institute at length, expressing his pleasure at the opportunity of meeting the coal operators, pledging his cooperation toward the solution of the mutual problems that are arising. He reviewed the change in the Western Industrial situation; explained how the revenue of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Rail- road was being received from freight rates, only twenty-four per cent above the rates of 1914, yet laborers receive 97 per cent more, supplies cost 58 per cent more, showing that no reduction in rates can be expected unless other conditions are adjusted. He gave figures to show the immense sums, aggregating ten million dollars, that have been spent on improvements in the last ten years. The railroad is improving and will continue to improve. Mr. Pyeatt feels that the serious troubles of the railroad are over and that with the cooperation of the shippers, better service and more profits are ahead. He showed the increase in rates on farm products to be only 48 per cent, as against an average in- crease in price of farm products, them- selves, of DG per cent. The position of the farmer is not as serious, nor un- fair, as has been claimed. More equitable legislation is promised, and this is needed to offset the efforts of demagogues to deceive the people as to the actual facts. Much equipment has been put into the railroad, much new and powerful equipment, and ten of the largest narrow gauge locomotives ever built have just been ordered, engines that will do the work of three of the present locomotives. This ratio of improvement will be maintained throughout the narrow guage system, and the Rio Grande will not lag behind the shippers and the operators in co- operation. The President answered Mr. Pyeatt's remarks, and then called the meeting to order for discussion. The study sessions were held; papers were read by .J. H. Emrick, "Cutter Bits"; D. A. Stout, "Experiments in Mining Methods," and Harry Petersen, "Permissible Powder and Cushion Shooting." Tuesday, February 17, 1925 The meeting was called to order Tuesday morning at 10 a.m., and papers read by: F. C. Miller, "Safety Methods With The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company"; this was supplemented by a talk by 0. C. Irwin on "Automatic Mine Fan Control," illustrated by models of the apparatus used; Samuel Tescher, "The Operation of a Gaseous Mine."

Jan 1, 1925

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

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

In this very interesting paper, Mr. Harrington mentions a considerable variety of materials suitable for use in the rock dusting of coal mines; this suggests that you may possibly be interested in same purely theoretical figures tending to show the superiority of gypsum for this purpose. Some of the gentlemen present have found difficulty in applying a thick, adherent coating of dry gypsum to the ribs and roofs of their workings, for which reason pulverized gypsum will perhaps be chiefly useful for the loading of barrier troughs. In view of the function that rock dust is expected to perform in case of a coal-dust explosion, it seems obvious that the most efficacious dust will be the one that can absorb the most heat and absorb it most rapidly. The customary rock dusting materials differ considerably in this respect, depending principally upon the facility with which they can be decomposed at the temperatures encountered in a coal-dust explosion. Such stable materials as silica, anhydrite and flue-dust vary but slightly in their heat-absorbing capacities, the specific heats of minerals in general ranging between 0.19 and 0.22; on the other hand, gypsum and limestone, as well as certain argillaceous materials such as shale, adobe, etc., are capable of absorbing additional heat through their chemical dissociation, although, as will appear later, it is questionable whether the amount of heat thus absorbed, in the case of limestone, shale, and adobe, is large enough to have any practical value. As to the temperature developed by a coal-dust explosion, the Bureau of Mines reports one test in which gold foil was melted, and others in which silver foil was melted, but not gold; hence 1832° F. (1000° C.) seems a reasonable figure to assume for purposes of calculation. Normal temperature is taken as 68° F. (20°C.). The other fundamental data required for the computations as cited by various authorities, are as follows: [Specific heats Gypsum : 0.259 Calcium sulphate, anhydrous. . .190 Limestone 0.216 Lime 0.239 Clay, shale, silica, etc. usually not exceeding 0.220 Carbon dioxide .:0.217 Steam (at atmospheric pressure)0.500 Heats of formation CaSO4+2H2O-4.606 Kg-cal. per gram molecule, or 48.2 B:t:u.' per pound of gypsum.- CaO +C0,42.5 Kg.-cal. per gram molecule, or 765 B.t.u. per pound of limestone. Latent heat of vaporization of water. from and at 100°C.. 535.9 Kg.-cal. per kilogram (964.6 B.t.u. per pound).] Computations will be based on the Fahrenheit scale and British thermal units, as probably more familiar in the coal industry. First as to the inert materials: their heat-absorbing capacity per pound is simply the product of their specific heat, say 0.22, multiplied by the assumed rise in temperature, 1764° F., or 388 B.t.u. per pound. Gypsum, CaS0, 2H.0, though apparently perfectly dry, contains 21% of combined water. When gradually heated it will have liberated three-quarters of its water freely by the time it reaches 250° F.; the remaining one-quarter is retained to a somewhat higher temperature, but the last of it will have been expelled at 482° F. For calculating the total heat absorbed in raising gypsum (or its products) to the temperature of a coal-dust explosion, no serious error will be intro-

Jan 1, 1925

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: We have with us a gentleman from Utah, who is familiarly known -as the "Mudite King," Mr. Reid, of the Lion Coal Company. Here is a letter I would like to read, and probably Mr. Reid will give us an idea of his Mudite machine, or the results he is obtaining. This question was brought up in Rock Springs, Wyoming, but Mr. Reid was not there personally during the discussion, but Mr. Burnell, who is general superintendent of the Lion Coal Com¬pany, as much as he possibly could, described the system and its effects. I believe Mr. Reid will probably be able to give a somewhat clearer statement this afternoon. This letter is from the Coal Mining Inspector of the State of Utah, John Crawford. "February 10, 1925. "The Industrial Commission of Utah, Building. "Statement of John Crawford, Coal Mine Inspector, in regard to Muditing in Coal Mines: "That Muditing used in connection with our present sprinkling system in coal mines is the missing link to the system we have had heretofore, because the water applied by the former system began to dry out, in heavy air currents, the moment it was put on. Consequently the dust that had been humidified by sprinkling, came back to its natural condition, and if anything, the combustible parts of it, in my opinion, were more intensified than previous to being wetted down. "The advantages that Muditing has over the old system of sprinkling are: "1st. The dust that is on the roof, timbers and sides of the entry is washed completely off and rolled up in the Mudite solution which entirely destroys the wings, crudely speaking, of the fine coal dust. "2nd. Sprinkling with the Mudite system, the water and mud is of greater extent than could be applied with a hand hose by a sprinkler. This sprinkling can be done while the mine is in operation, just the same as if water alone was being used. "3rd. The Mudite solution, when dried out, leaves a coating which serves as an armour to the coal, so that in the event of a local explosion, the inflammable matter on the coal is non-combustible; whereas, if that same coal had been sprinkled with water only, and made free of dust, the heat would have the same effect on the coal as it has on a stove when coal is thrown into it-instantaneous combustion. "Therefore, it is my opinion that the Mudite system is the missing link to the perfecting of our sprinkling system here in Utah. "(Signed) JOHN CRAWFORD." Mr. Reid has with him a few sam¬ples of his Mudite, after it has become solidified, taken from the floor, as I understand it. It is interesting. We have a few minutes to spare to good advantage, were we to ask Mr. Reid to give us an idea of his machine, as briefly as he possibly can, and also what he thinks the effect of the Mudite is compared to dry rock dust. Mr. Reid. (Applause.) MR. W. J. REID (Lion Coal Company) : I came down here with no intention of making any talk on Mudite. However, there being so many people that have seen Mudite at Wattis

Jan 1, 1925

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

By N. H. Wetzel

Railroads, attempting to increase their tonnage without adding new lines, have for some time realized there is a definite relationship between increasd haulage efficiency, and constant communication with each moving unit that operates along their roadbeds. Elaborate radio communication equipment has been devised for this purpose, and is rapidly being installed. Coal mines are faced with similar haulage problems and have sought this constant contact through the use of telephone systems, and dispatcher stations. Often the fixed mine telephone system is unsatisfactory, since the desired person is not present at the phone when needed. Dispatchers lose contact with a motorman as soon as he is out of sight, until he calls in from another telephone. The recently developed frequency-modelated radio phone which makes use of the trolleywire network in a mine as a carrying medium, permits instant and continuous contact between dispatcher and locomotives. The motorman can immediately contact another motor or the dispatcher regardless, of his motor's position on the trollywire system, whether moving or standing.

Jan 1, 1948

MINUTES OF MEETING, AUGUST 27, 1923. Meeting called to order at 10:00 a. m, by the President, George B. Pryde. In the opening remarks Mr. Pryde commented on the Kemmerer disaster, making the work of the Institute particularly important, the desirability of using a more up-to-date emblem for the Institute, the formation of local chapters. The minutes of previous meeting were presented by the Secretary in connection with our publication. Announcements were made regarding the program. Under reports of officers, no reports were made. No reports of standing committees. Report of Special Safety Committee was postponed for a full session, August 28th. There was no further business. Under the head of new business, the following names were proposed and accepted for membership: J. P. Russell, Salt Lake City, Utah, W. A. LaPierre, Salt Lake City, Utah, G. A. Schultz, Latuda, Utah, W. A. Seyffert, Salt Lake City, Utah, P. C. Bunning, Rock Springs, Wyoming, F. L. Gates, Superior, Wyoming, F. C. Miller, Trinidad, Colorado, G. B. Parker, Trinidad, Colorado, Robert Williams, Jr., Somerset, Colorado, F. L. McCarty, Rock Springs, Wyoming,

Jan 1, 1923

Meeting called to order at 11:30 A. M., February 23, by the President: Horace Moses, in the Chair. W. D. Brennan moved that the present Secretary continue, and he furnished an assistant. Before the question was put, he suggested that Frank Sandstrom, of the Colorado-New Mexico Coal Operators' Association, would be a satisfactory assistant, and his motion was extended to include the election of Frank Sandstrom as Corresponding Secretary, subject to confirmation after completion of reorganization, with the present Secretary as Executive Secretary, and that a Committee be appointed, one member from each of the four states, to devise and put into execution a permanent financing and operating policy for the Institute. Seconded and carried. The Chairman appointed W. D. Breunan, A. C. Watts, J. B. Marks, P. J. Quealy, with the President of the Institute as Ex-officio member and chairman.

Jan 1, 1927

By Eugene McAuliffe

The labor turn-over at coal mines has long been a fertile subject for parade by complaining coal operators, the question invariably occupying a place of prominence in the list of disabilities that tend to increase the cost of producing coal, adding likewise to the now startling number of accidents that occur in coal mines. This disability, however, is like the weather question, which some humorist once remarked of by saying, "The weather is something we all talk about, but nobody does anything to improve it." Endless compilations covering the shift of employment by coal mine labor have been made and published, and while the actual loss expressed in cents per ton in cost of coal produced has never been determined, the fact remains that such represents a substantial item, taking the mines of the country as a whole. Efficiency engineers who have made studies covering the cost of breaking in and training each new man employed in certain manufacturing industries, fix same as averaging not less than $100.00 per man, and when the character of mine employment is given due consideration, including its ever-present hazards, the difficulty of close personal super- vision of individual employes, and the, at times, almost impossible ability to transmit to men of many diverse nationalities understandable instructions, it is quite safe to say that the cost of securing and breaking in new men for underground mine work will fully equal that suffered by the factory managements. When we speak of mine labor turnover we must necessarily exclude the enforced shifting about of men who are laid off by the closure of mines due to accident or lack of market, con- fining ourselves to the turn-over occasioned by- (a) the dismissal of individual men or groups of men; (b) the voluntary resignation of the individual workman. It is these two methods of severance that the employer and employe alike suffer from; the item "Unclaimed Wages" carried in the accounts of every large coal company illustrative of the "quit this job, get another one" attitude of many workmen, who frequently, when leaving, fail to claim small sums due them, while others, in turn, leave a train of debts, large and small, behind. There is' ample evidence abroad to the effect that many

Jan 1, 1925

By Richard L. Lawson

Thank you President Nielsen, and thank you ladies and gentlemen of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. I'm glad you asked me to join you a second time. The setting here at Tamarron is splendid. A few days ago the National Coal Association held its Diamond Anniversary meeting at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs. Although NCA is junior to this Institute in years, we do try to keep up. Our speakers looked at 1992 as the possible eve of a new era in world history - a pivotal year. It offers the opportunity to replace a dying era of war and tension with a new one of peace and prosperity built on economic cooperation and trade and, of course, energy to uphold all four - trade, cooperation, prosperity and peace. The Persian Gulf War was only a sample of what can happen to the other four if the energy isn't there. And so I especially like your theme: Energizing America With Coal. It is most pertinent. I was invited to discuss the National Energy Policy and its impact on coal and I intend to do that. But more important is coal's impact on the Nation and the world and so 1 shall discuss that as well. This year - 1992 -also will be pivotal in the Nation's politics.

Jan 1, 1992

Past President Ralph Moore opended the meeting at 9:30 a.m. He thanked all the committees for their part in making the 1977 meeting the success is was. He then turned the meeting over to President-elect, Shirl McArthur. President McArthur called on the Auditing Committee to present its report. Gabe Ishley, Chairman, read the report and asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. Loren Linville gave his report on registration and new members which figures are in the Monday a.m. business meeting of the Proceedings. The Resolutions Committee was asked to give its report. William Bear, Chairman, submitted the following: (1) RESOLVED: WHEREAS, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: John A. Garcia John B. Huehes H. B. Lindeman Richard B. Miller Charles Pliley Wilford Ruff James Westfield

Jan 1, 1977

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of Twenty-first Meeting 9 The U. S. Fuel Company's Tipple at the Hiawatha Mine John M. Jennings 11 Some Experiences With Mechanical Loading in Central Pennsylvania¬ O. G. Sharrer 13 Mechanical Loading Underground- A. W. Dickinson 25 Operation by Long-Face Conveyor Method at Sweetwater Mine Glen A. Knox 39 Discussion of Mechanical Loading 44 Discussion-Safety in Mechanical Loading 45 New Steel Tipple, Spring Canyon, Utah- G. A. Murphy 46 A Theory on the Cause of Spontaneous Combustion-C. P. Crawford... 48 Rock Dusting in the West-D. Harrington 50 Mudite-L. C. Clare 57 Discussion of Harrington's and Clare's Papers 59 Material for Rock Dust-Prepared Discussion-Edward K. Judd 60 Tipple and Mine of the Columbia Steel Corporation-T. C. Harvey 63 Mechanical Stoking of Domestic Fuel-Joseph Harrington 67 The Garrison Automatic Domestic Stoker-Lloyd Garrison 70 Discussion of Domestic Stokers 71]

Jan 1, 1925

By John R. Spencer

Today's coal market offers many unique buying and selling opportunities. By reviewing past and present marketing practices, new contracting philosophies can be developed with cooperation between the buyer and seller that can lead to a more stable market. This paper presents an analysis of the past and present coal markets and techniques that are currently being used in contracting that are intended to develop a more stable market place in the future.

Jan 1, 1987

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Mr. Homer Hyatt, Safety Director, North American Coal Corporation, Western Division, Castle Gate, Utah. Mr. Hyatt introduced Mr. Richard F. Walker, Vice President, Engineer & Planning, Electric Department, Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Walker is a native of the State of Nebraska, a graduate of the University of Colorado with a BSEE degree in 1949. He has been associated with the Public Service Company of Colorado for almost twenty years and in the above capacity for the last one and one-half years. Mr. Walker?s subject was "Our New Plants and Coal. (See index for printed text of Mr. Walker's paper.) Mr. John F. O'Leary, Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. spoke on the ?High Cost of Economy.? Mr. O'Leary graduated from George Washington University in 1950 with a degree in Economics. In 1950, he joined the Bureau of Mines. In 1963 he was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mineral Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior. In 1967, he was appointed Chief, Bureau of Natural Gas, Federal Power Commission. In 1968, appointed Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.

Jan 1, 1969

[Adams, Leonard E.819 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Adams, V. H422 East San Miguel. Colorado Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W.2636 So. Gilpin St., Denver 10, Colo. Allen, Thomas State Coal Mine Inspector, State Office Bldg., Denver, Colo. Ambler, J. B P. O. Box 591, Denver, Colo. Apperson, A. B 394 Elm St., Denver 7, Colo. Arnold, G. O Phelps-Dodge Co., Dawson, New Mexico Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audis, Clement, Jr. Paonia, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1948

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

Jan 1, 1998