Search Documents

By Margaret N. Maxey

For the past quarter century, it is fair to say that the political agenda of Western industrialized societies has been driven by those opposed to forms of economic growth providing sustenance to a growing population. They regard growth as the major threat to their social philosophy which champions a wholly "new ethic of biocentric equality" or "living as if Nature mattered." This ethic demands that "a violent, plundering humankind" must abandon its alleged rape of Planet Earth and derive its ethical norms from pre-existing harmonies and fragile, precarious balance present in Nature. A Green political agenda appeals strongly to deep longings shared among many people whose temperament seeks tranquillity in a world of wild natural beauty uncluttered by dependency on tools and experts and specialists. According to proponents of the Green philosophy, our world is pregnant with enormous problems. Armed with expanded political powers, regulatory guardians at state and local levels have mustered their forces with shotguns cocked, poised to prod an ignorant and lazy citizenry to the altar for an exchange of vows with Environmental Ethics. Social engineers have skillfully discredited the traditional role of professionals in scientific engineering who are summarily dismissed as the failed architects of an industrial system pillaging the earth. They stand accused of producing unmanageable offspring - from mining minerals and energy resources to disposing of toxic wastes - whose disputed parentage and expectant crimes against humanity must be prevented by removing them from normal custody. Green critics claim that markets cannot be given custody of industrial offspring - pollutants, wastes, land-use abuses. Markets appear to have failed to provide equity to present and future generations. The only custodian with sufficient coercive power seems to be the regulatory bureaucracy. The upshot is a stark Hobson's choice - Shotgun Wedding vs. Custody Dispute. It derives its fateful predestination from an uncritical acceptance of several preconceptions which currently undergird the altar of Sustainability characterized by its acolytes as "a new and exciting doctrine." It is significant that Limits to Growth slogans of the 1970s have been displaced in the 1990s by the more palatable language of Sustainability. As a policy recommended to forestall an impending doom, Sustainability derives its credibility from dire predictions of global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain and the like. The Rio Declaration announced to the world in June 1992 that, although energy is essential to human well-being, its production and consumption in wealthy industrialized nations is unsustainable. It called for a complete overhaul of energy systems with nothing short of a total replacement of fossil fuels, uranium fission reactors, and large hydroelectric projects by means of so-called renewable energy sources, augmented by coercive regulations to force conservation and limit consumption demands. The social and political consequences of such a sweeping

Jan 1, 1995

The eighth annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1999 Institute convention at the Crested Butte Marriott Resort, Colorado. [ ] Elliott Tsosie, Mary Rowell, Janna Aune, Guy Horton, Art Saenz and Bill Balaz were pleased with the 1999 Mine Rescue Program, The Mine Rescue committee is but one of 17 volunteer committees; this one co-chaired by Bill Balaz, Elliott Tsosie and Janna Aune. There were three evaluators, Art Saenz, Western Environmental; Mary Rowell, ProCare and Guy Horton, Horton Rope Rescue. Nine teams participated and brought 89 participants, 26 spouses, nine children and five teens. The teams were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navajo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, NM; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, WY; The Coteau Properties Co., Beulah, ND; Northwestern Resources, Jewett, TX; Powder River Coal Co., Gillette, WY; Solvay Minerals, Green River, WY and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, MT. To observe were members from Centralia Mining Co., Centralia, WA. [ ] Evaluators: Mary Rowell, Guy Horton &Art Saenz The three professional evaluators provided challenging scenarios for the Mine Rescue participants on the grounds of the resort property. Some attending convention were alarmed to see stretchers with "victims" and phoned the hotel switchboard to report the catastrophe. Team members had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios might be and derails were provided only as they arrived at the scenario location, with one exception. Seven to ten or more articipants make up each team. Some teams also ring an alternate and team trainer. For identification purposes, the "victims" wore white shirts emblazoned both front and back with a red VICTIM designation. There was a staged demonstration by three response teams who had not previously worked together. This was enacted on the convention floor following a Technical Session meeting attended by about 200 members. Three response teams from BHP's Navajo and San Juan Mines together with Coteau Properties' Freedom Mine provided a demonstration of their response skills. For never having worked together before, they presented a very professional enactment. This is described at length in the Welcome Session copy. Training sessions were held Saturday and Sunday to enable the teams to prepare for the scenarios. A swap meet was Saturday evening for teams to swap hats, shirts, belt buckles, stickers etc. Each participant received a royal blue golf shirt and ivory cap with royal blue bill. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning Awards breakfast when teams were presented with jade acrylic plaques. [ ] Teams participating in the Mine Rescue Evaluation received trophies on Tuesday morning. The captains above represent BHP-La Plata, BHP-Navajo, BHP¬San Juan, Bridger Coal Co., The Coteau Properties Co., Powder River Coal Co., Solvay Minerals, and Western Energy Co. Sponsors who contributed financially to the 1999 Mine Rescue program were Balaz & Associates, CMC, Civil Constructors, Colstrip Electric, Farmington Fire Equipment & Safety, Fisher Safety, Flanders Ellctric Motor Service, Magnum Metals, Richard Palmtag, Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, Sedona Consulting and Western Water Consultants. [ ] Evaluator Art Saenz likes to have the upper hand and will take whatever steps necessary to get it.

Jan 1, 1999

By M .. K. Stewart

(Here follows descriptive movie.) CHAIRMAN KNOX: Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart, for this wonderful paper and picture. We are indebted to you. It certainly is the most interesting thing I have ever seen in connection with wire rope, except paying for it. I think there are a lot of questions that could be asked to bring out some points that we are not generally understanding of. Are there any questions at this time? I know Mr. Stewart will be glad to answer them. Come up to the front, Mr. Stewart. MR. STEWART: That's all right, thanks. CHAIRMAN KNOX: If there are any questions, let us have them. (No response.) Well, we will pass on to the next paper. CHAIRMAN KNOX: Our next paper will be "Self-Preservation, with Some Comments on Mechanical Loading," by Benedict Shubart and Charles Schloss.

Jan 1, 1935

By J. A. Bullington

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Some of you men may know who are familiar with what we have been doing in the C. F. & I. the last three years, that we have revamped our entire method of cost accounting from the pit bosses' report through to the final report of the president. The basic ideas involved in our cost system are not ours. They were given us by one of the best management and industrial engineering concerns in the country-at least they have that reputation. All I can do now is to try to pass on to you some of the ideas we have from various sources and the methods we have used in teaching those ideas to our coal men on cost accounting. This will not be a technical paper. I tried to put it in language we could all understand, and I hope I will be talking the same language that you gentlemen talk when you think about the cost of your coal in your own mines. Accounting of all kinds is classed as overhead expense, and as overhead expense we must justify its cost by the service it gives the rest of the organization. That brings us up to the problem of making the cost department pay its own way, just the same as the power plant has to pay its own way, and we have gotten away from the old idea of cost accounting in that it is sufficient within itself. The cost sheets are only so good as they enable the operating man to reduce his costs. The cost sheets are only just so much work for the cost department, and if they do not help the operating man to control his costs, we figure that is so much work wasted. The cost department works for the operating department.

Jan 1, 1931

Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co. Sundance Rt. Moorcroft, WY 82716 Charles R. Ahlbrecht Western States Surveying Inc. 7030 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 Dean Albon Monsanto Co. 800 No. Lindberg St. Louis, MO 631 67 Robert Anderson Mobil Oil Producing Inc. POB 17772 Denver, CO 8021 7 Stephen P. Antony Orbital Engineering 6789 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 David Ariotti Boyle Mining Engineering Service Rt. 1 Box 15M Helper. UT 84526 Douglas Auck Falkirk Mining Co. 103 McKinley Ave. Underwood, ND 58378 Roger Backrnan N. D. Crockett & Assoc. 3467 Sorenson Way Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Richard Bailey Continental Conveyor & Equip. Co. 602 Park Point Drive Golden, CO 80401 Earl W. Baker Baker & Co. 4965 Jackson St. Denver, CO 80216 Allen P. Barber San Juan Coal Co. 705 Ocio Farrnington, NM 87421 Edward Barker Process Equipment Builders POB 7506 Paducah, KY 42001 Larry Barton Carter Mining Co. 101 5 Teewinot Circle Gillette, WY 82716 Hugh Bastian American Carbide Corp. POB 2650 Ronald N. Batdorf Monsanto Co. Box 701 Saratoga, WY 82331 Georgetown, KY 40321 Doris A. Bauer Mobile Oil Corp. POB 17772 Denver, CO 80217 Jan Beam Blount International Ltd. 2570 So. Dayton Way #E-308 Denver, CO 80231 Mac Beaudry Falkirk Mining Co. 1029 Cannon Ln. Washburn, ND 58527 R. C. Beerbower Gates Engineering Co. Drawer A Beckley, WV 25801

Jan 1, 1982

The 68th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in Manor Vail Lodge, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President Max A. Robb, Vice President and General Manager, U.S. Fuel Company, Hiawatha, Utah. Mr. Robb welcomed the members and guests and was pleased with the large attendance. He then introduced President Joseph E. Ward, former District Man- ager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. (Retired). A brief biography follows: Mr. Ward is a transplanted Westerner, having spent the greater part of his life in the Eastern and Southern areas of this country. In 1927, he graduated from what was then the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, Pa., with a B.S. degree in Mining Engineering. He dropped out of school for a period between his Junior and Senior years and worked in the coal mines in order to obtain sufficient money to complete his education. Practically all his adult life since graduation, has been spent in or around the coal mines in this country. After graduation, he worked the next 15 years of his life as an underground supervisor, first for the Hudson Coal Co., in Scranton, Pa. and later for the U.S. Steel Corporation in Birmingham, Alabama. He then went into sales, selling basically to the coal mine industry and other mining operations. The last 13 years of his business career were spent as a district manager for Joy Manufacturing CO., 10 years of which were in the Coal Division of their Denver office, covering the Rocky Mountain area. He retired in August 1970 but still retains an active interest in the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the Rocky Mountain Coal Industry it supports. He is a widower, his wife, Thelma having died in July 1970. He has two children and six grandchildren.

Jan 1, 1972

The 73rd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Robert W. Wilson, President and General Manager, K&P, Inc., Golden, Colorado, called the meeting to order. The membership was asked to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. As your immediate past president, it is my pleasure to have the responsibility of introducing our current President. But before I tell you about Ralph, I would like to make the following brief reflection, which I feel very strongly about: In these days of so much negativism toward our coal industry by so many people, we all must remember one thing as we go about producing energy for our country. Coal mining is just as American as the American hamburger, the American hot dog, and just as American as the flag to which we just pledged allegiance.

Jan 1, 1977

The meeting was called to order by the President, Mr. B. J. Matteson, in Dining Room No. I of the Albany Hotel, at 10 a. in., with thirty members present. After an address of welcome by the President, the Convention proceeded to business. First on the program was the reading of the minutes of the' previous meeting, by" the Secretary.' There being no alterations or amendments they were approved as read. A motion was regularly moved and carried that the Secretary provide membership cards to be mailed, or presented, to the members upon payment of dues in lieu of the receipt which has heretofore been used since the organization of the Institute. Mr. R. A. McAllister then presented his paper, the subject, being: "Mine Haulage." Mr. Robert A. Marshall had prepared a paper upon the subject of "Efficiency in Shot Firing," but as he was unavoidably absent, it was read by Mr. Sam Andrews. At the conclusion of the reading of Mr. Marshall's paper, Mr. Andrews presented his own *paper: "Some Facts About Coal Mining." As Mr. George A. Brown was unable to be present, the President requested Mr. R. S. Morton to read his paper, subject: "Flexoid Tubing and Its Application to Coal Mines as a Means of Temporary Ventilation." There being no further business 'the meeting adjourned.

Jan 1, 1921

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

CONCLUSIONS: Our experience, where we attempt to remove a continuous face with a seam more than six and one-half feet in thickness, has been rather disastrous. We have been able to open up faces and retreat for a distance of 75 to 100 feet in this particular character of coal, but after the supporting timbers have been removed for the second or third time we have found that the roof has a tendency to ride over the props and break off at the face of the coal support. However, where our coal is below six and one-half feet in thickness we have had very good success in handling the roof and breaking it off systematically with our break line of props, which are usually from 12 to 15 feet from the face of the coal. Our practice in to set props at about two-foot intervals in each direction and remove two sets of props, at the same time two additional sets are placed along the coal face. At all times we are very insistent that all props be removed from the gob and that entire coal be taken out so that it is possible for the roof to break freely and all come down, not having any supporting pillars in the gob. The conclusion of our experiments to date is that if all the supports beyond the breaking line of props are taken out as the long face retreats and the closer the breaking line of props is kept to the face the better the results will be. We have never felt it safe to have less than four rows of props to protect the machinery and men working along the coal face. We feel that the time element as to the rapidity with which these faces are advanced or retreated, is of vast importance, but to date have not had an opportunity or experience enough to reach any conclusion as to what time element is proper here with us. We feel that the crushing strength of the overlying strata will govern this to a large extent, and as ours varies considerably, it is going to he very difficult for us to reach a definite conclusion. My opinion is, that conditions may be such that rather than have a short face and retreat rapidly, it will be found that a longer facewith a slower retreat will work out better. Such a condition might give the overlying strata time to settle. The caving of roof or of control of this caving, with us, is quite closely associated with the ventilation. We find that the places where the strata overlying the coal are composed of shale, that the effect of the air on this is of very great importance. It is our endeavor, at all times, not only to remove obnoxious gases, but to keep a current of fresh air moving along the face and, of course, a portion of this travels over the gob and comes in contact with the roof and overlying strata. This, we find, helps materially in keeping the roof on the move. As it is our practice to keep water for sprinkling purposes at all places, we also use this water to keep the roof wet back in the gob. The effect of water on the shale is to cause it to disintegrate quite rapidly. MR. HOLMAN (Concluding): If there are any questions about this, I will be glad to answer them. I have some prints and also some pictures of the scraper loader and the shaking conveyors (distributes.) PRESIDENT MOSES: We wish to thank you, Mr. Holman, and also wish that you would thank Mr. Dupont for his paper. Are there any discussions? Do you wish to ask Mr. Holman any questions? (No response.) PRESIDENT MOSES: Mr. Holman, I would like to ask you how you take the photographs; were they taken by flashlight, or were globes used, or how were they taken, in a gaseous mine? MR. HOLMAN: Our mines being gaseous, we do not use the ordinary flashlight for taking underground photographs, but we have had considerable success, I think, with underground pictures by means of electric lights. We use 250 watt globes. We have six of these rigged up with tin reflectors, 18 inches in diameter, on standards, and we carry two or three hundred feet of wire connected with these six lights, and they can be turned on in the room where we take the photograph, by means of this extra wire. We set the kodak up and arrange the picture and take a long time-exposure. We usually take an

Jan 1, 1926

By Bill Reid

Jan 1, 2007

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

The Sixty-Second Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10 a.m. by Past President Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Bridwell thanked the Joy Manufacturing Company fer the very fine party of the previous evening. He also paid tribute to a very fine Committee - the Program Committee: O. F. Lewis, Chairman, Oren Bridwell, Edward G. Fox, Glen E. Sorensen, Joseph E. Ward, R. R. Williams, Jr., and John Peperakis. Mr. Bridwell then introduced George A. Nugent, Vice President and General Manager, Big Horn Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, as follows: "It is my privilege and duty to call this 62nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order and to extend to you all a cordial welcome.

Jan 1, 1966

The 74th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Ralph Moore, Vice President, Operations, Westmoreland Resources, Hardin, Montana, called the meeting to order. The membership was asked to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. He welcomed members and guests and thanked Park Lamborn, the Program Chairman, for the excellent speakers and program he engineered. He mentioned the cancellation of our golf tournament due to the conflicting dates with the Annual Jerry Ford Invitational Golf Tournament. He thanked all of the committees with a special "thank you" to Loren Linville and Gussie Whiteside. He introduced President, Shirl C. McArthur. President and General Manager, American Coal Company, Huntington, Utah. A biographical sketch follows: Mr. McArthur, a native of Huntington, Utah, began his coal mining career shortly after graduating from North Emery High School and worked his way up through the ranks, having worked at every job available underground. For example, he dug coal with a "banjo" at the Independent Coal and Coke Company in Kenilworth. In the summer of 1941, he worked at Straight Canyon Mine as a timberman and advanced to section foreman in four years. He was face boss for part of the time. In October 1946, he received a call from the LDS Church General Welfare Board (presided over then by Marion G. Romney) and took over as superintendent of the Church Mine. He operated in that capacity until the mine became privately owned in 1971. In 1961, Mr. McArthur formed Castle Valley Mining company, and in 1970, he organized American Coal Company, which he presently owns and operates.

Jan 1, 1978

The 63rd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President George A. Nugent, Vice President and General Manager, Big Horn Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. He thanked and offered his congratulations to the Program Committee for a very wonderful job, namely, John Reeves, Chairman, E. G. Fox, Lee Jensen, O. F. Lewis, J. Peperakis, R. M. von Storch, J. E. Ward and R. R. Williams, Jr. He thanked the suppliers for a fine cocktail party the evening before. Mr. Nugent's Opening Address and introduction of President James Westfield, Assistant Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., follows: It is a real privilege to call this 63rd Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order and to say welcome.

Jan 1, 1967

By Bill Gray

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 1942

By F. T. Baker

The Primero mine, operated by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, is located 17 miles west of Trinidad, Colorado, in Las Animas County. Unusually bad roof conditions, along with heavy side pressure and other conditions causing rapid decay of timbers, all combine to create a very serious timbering problem. The height of the coal averages six feet six inches. It is a heavy coking coal and has a tendency to become easily crushed and broken down in the seam. The seam lies about 35 feet below the sandstone and the intervening formation is composed of loose shaly rock, and as the coal is extracted, the air slackens this rock to such an extent that within 24 hours, roof falls varying from five to fifteen feet in height are likely to occur. Under these conditions it is necessary to use cross bar sets in both rooms and entries, and they must be spaced no further apart than three and one-half foot centers, and be maintained within a distance of three feet of the face. Rooms are spaced on fifty footcenters, and cannot with safety be driven to exceed 14 feet in width, and 200 feet in length. The large pillar must be maintained to protect from side pressure, and the rooms must be driven up and retreated with as quickly as possible to avoid the squeeze caused by the intense side and roof pressure. Best results in extraction have been obtained by driving rooms for only a distance of 150 feet. Under these circumstances, it is readily seen that timbers of small diameters cannot be utilized in timbering any development work of a permanent nature. Entries are driven nine feet wide, and special peeled piling with an average diameter of 12 inches are most commonly used. It, is necessary to use lagging between each set of crossbars . Conditions such as these necessitated an immense expenditure for mine timber. In addition to ordinary seven and eight foot props, we used a yearly average of 65,000 feet of heavy peeled piling, averaging in diameter from 10 inches to 12 inches. Annual expenditures for timber of all classes was in excess of $60,000.00. Timber costs per ton averaged around 29 cents. In view of these exceptionally severe timber conditions at Primero, the company, in 1920, had a survey made with a view of providing some remedy to this problem. A comparison of the life of main entry timber at other bituminous mines was made, and an average life of four years was established. The actual data collected at Primero indicated an average of less than two years in the manway or "return" airways, and up to five years on the haulageways or "intake" airways. While some of this timber will stand up for a much longer period than this, a close inspection will reveal in most cases that its period of usefulness is spent. It is very essential when discussing the life of timber, especially that used on, main haulageways and aircourses, that a distinction be made between the point of service, that is, the point where it is sound, serviceable and able to carry weight, and the point of breakdown or failure, where it is no longer sound and able to carry weight. In figuring the life of timber, the point of service only should be considered as timber will frequently stand for a considerable length of time when it is entirely decayed and unserviceable. The larger part of the timber used for our permanent work was Alpine Fir, or what is locally termed Red Spruce, and the supply of this I is gradually becoming depleted and has to be obtained at a point so distant

Jan 1, 1926

By Gordon E. Jackson

I read a book the other day called Opportunity 2000. The book, Opportunity 2000, talks about what's going to happen in the next nine or ten years as we propel ourselves through the 1990s into the 219 century. The book, Opportunity 2000, is a futuristic book, somewhat like Megatrends. It said that by the year 2000, baby boomers will be old people, and when you got here before the baby boomers, how does that make you feel? It said that there will be more women in the American work place by the year 2000 than men. The book, Opportunity 2000, discusses diversity. The big challenge for the 1990s is ?diversity?. We'll have the D-word in the 1990s. We had the G-word in the 1980s ? ?global.? Diversity in terms of more immigrants, more minorities, more females into the American work place, but also value systems diversity. We'll have to deal and adapt to four different generational clusters in dealing and interacting with employees and management in the 1990s-value systems diversity. I think there will be five generational clusters that we'll have to deal with. Massey says four. He says we'll still have the old people around, the World War II mentality; those who

Jan 1, 1991