Search Documents

CHAIR: I see a great many safety men in the audience and I hope you will all take part in using up the time that we have left. The point brought up by all was the necessity of education. It is very hard to know just how this is going to be done. We get very little encouragement to do this. At a recent meeting at Rock Springs, 100 in attendance, and most of them mine officials. Another condition which contributes to accidents is the labor turnover in many of our States. With many companies I am told from actual statistics the labor turnover is 125 per cent. Each field has different mining conditions so that men coming from one field are not always familiar with the mine conditions in the field they come to. These are conditions which have to be overcome. WM. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Harrington brought up the subject of sprinkling. I will try to tell what we are doing at the Utah Fuel Company camps. Our dust at Castle Gate is the most inflammable gas that has yet been tested at the Pittsburgh station of the Bureau of Mines, so it is up to us to use every precaution to keep it down. I will try to tell what we are doing regarding sprinkling from tanks. We now have in operation two tanks in our locomotive roads, one in Castle Gate, one in Sunnyside. These tanks are something like 500-gallon tanks with pump on one end of truck which gets its power from the power wire and has a half circle perforated pipe on the other end of tank. This is simply hooked on to the locomotive. When the pump is started up it throws a fine spray of water all around which wets the roof, the sides and floor. We found this very successful from an economical as well as a working standpoint. A roadway that we probably would have had to pay a man at least two shifts for, covering the full distance, with the ordinary hose and spray, we can do in half a day and do it more thoroughly. We are also figuring on at the present time using the same system on rope haulage ways, which of course will have to be run by a reel from the feed lines, handling say four hundred feet each way before reconnecting. We haven't got it finished, but are working on it at the present time. MR. COLBURN: I would like to say a few words -about this question of education. Education was mentioned by all three sections of the Safety Committee. Education regarding safety might be divided into two branches. One branch is for the official at the mine to keep him acquainted with the latest developments in safety equipment and safety methods. The other part of education is for the workmen. The United States Bureau of Mines is co-operating in both directions. Safety Clubs are organized around the Bureau of Mines First Aid Training, but it is the idea to expand those clubs and teach the miner the advantage of such-things as the closed safety lamp, and also the regulations that have been made for his safety. In Illinois we can't operate with the closed lamp, because the miners in that section of the country are not educated to the advantages of the safety lamp. Another form of education has been taken up by the National Safety Council, consisting of voluntary organizations similar to the Institute, to which all mining men are invited to attend. Such conferences nave been held in the Lake Superior district, in Butte, and in Globe, Arizona, this year. These are to be extended throughout the coal mining regions. CHAIRMAN PRYDE: The Union Pacific Coal Company has also built two tank cars of 600 gallons capacity each. The tanks are connected with hose, so that water can flow from one tank to the other. A centrifugal pump is mounted on a truck, and connected to the front tank. This pump takes its power from the trolley wire. The discharge from the pump is perforated, so that it sprays the floor and sides of the entries. We expect to use this water train on main haulage ways where we have no sprinkling line.

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 2005

By D. Harrington

At the time of mine accidents one frequently hears the expression "there will be accidents as long as there are mines", or it may be varied to state that the accident in question was unavoidable, or something similar indicating inability to prevent accidents. However, it is the opinion of the writer, after over twenty-one years experience in both coal and metal mining, seven years being spent wholly in safety work, that by far the greater number of all accidents is due to carelessness or negligence. This carelessness or negligence may be on part of the victim of the accident or of one of his companions, or on part of his employer or possibly even of the inspector or safety man, and in some cases all of these agencies are involved. It manifests itself in various guises, one of the most serious being violation of state mining laws or regulations or of mine rules, and frequently the rules of ordinary common-sense. The cause very frequently is that trait in human nature to "take a chance" and it has been the writer's observation that the worst offender is the old-time miner who has come safely through many years experience, who was mining when the "safety man was a baby", and who clings to old-time ideas and practices and has "no use" for "newfangled" present-day "notions". Unquestionably, there are accidents, wholly unavoidable and many are caused by ignorance and by the new-comer in mining, yet as previously indicated, the writer's observation is that the old-timer is by far the worst offender, bringing grief to himself, companions and employer. Of the numerous manifestations of carelessness and negligence in connection with mine accidents, which have come to the notice of the writer, only one will be treated in this paper, viz: Violation of State Mining Law, and mention will be made only of explosions and major accidents in coal' mines with which the writer came in personal contact as investigator. In most cases, in addition to mine inspection after the accident, the writer heard the evidence given at Coroner's inquest and thus was enabled to for¬mulate fairly definite impressions as to events and conditions leading up to the occurrence.

Jan 1, 1922

In the absence of. J. B. Marks, President, the meeting was called to order by George B. Pryde, Past President. After organization, the meeting was turned over to W. J. Reid, Vice-President for Utah. A moving picture, "The Story of Dynamite," was shown by the courtesy of the E. I. DuPont de Nemours Company. This provoked a great deal of discussion and many questions were asked A. E. Anderson, who described the paper. John M. Jennings read a description of the United States Fuel Company's new Hiawatha tipple, after which the meeting adjourned to Hiawatha for lunch and a visit to the tipple and outside workings of the Hiawatha mine. Thursday, August 27, 1925 Meeting called to order at 9:30 by Vice-President W. J. Reid. Papers were read on the subject of "Mechanical Loading," by A. W. Dickinson, 0. G. Sharrer, and the paper of Glen A. Knox was read by the Secretary. General Superintendent George A. Murphy, of the Spring Canyon Coal Company, read a description of their newly completed tipple. The meeting then adjourned for Spring Canyon where lunch was served, and the afternoon spent in viewing the new. tipple. At 8:00 p. m., D. Harrington read a paper on "Rock Dusting," L. C. Clare read a paper on "Mudite's Relation to Nature," and at 11 p. m. the meeting adjourned. Friday, August 28, 1925 Meeting called to order at 9:30 a. m. by Vice-President W. J. Reid. The discussion of preceding papers continued. Paper by Joseph Harrington on "Domestic Fuel Stokers" was read by the Secretary. The expected paper by Mayne Read was not presented as Mr. Read was unable to get to Price on account of railroad conditions. The papers on the "Theory of Spontaneous Combustion," by C. P. Crawford, were also omitted through an error of the Secretary, and particular attention is called to the publication of these two articles. The new tipple of the Columbia Steel Company was described by T. C. Harvey, after which the meeting adjourned for Columbia, where luncheon was served and the nine visited. After the visit to Columbia, the delegates were taken to the Sunnyside mine of the Utah Fuel Company, where an hour was spent. Upon motion, unanimously adopted, the Secretary was instructed to express the sincere appreciation of the delegates to the Price Chamber of Commerce, the Civic Association, the Price News-Advocate, Harry Keene, Harry Duberstein, John M. Jennings, Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, and Geo. A. Murphy of the Financial Committee, for the complete success in handling the meeting of the Institute. The report of the Membership Committee on the following was accepted: R. E. Birchard, Standardville, Utah. Dave Brown, Spring Canyon, Utah. William Burt, Hiawatha, Utah. A. J. Coats, Fort Collins, Colo. R. P. Fitch, Rains, Utah.

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

Thomas J. Parmley C. N. Sweet T. C. Jenkins W. S. Iliff, Sr. Warren Bracewell L. C. White Fading away like the stars of the morning, Losing their light in the glorious sun; Thus would we pass from earth and its toiling, Only remembered by what we have done.

Jan 1, 1947

forated, allowing the completion of the removal of wash water. When discharged into the washed nut bin, the coal is moist but carries so little water as to not be objectionable to the trade, nor to give any difficulty from freezing during the coldest weather. The rock and bone from the primary jigs is elevated to a 15-ton bin by means of a single strand scraper conveyor 40 feet center to center operating on a 45 degree incline, carrying 12" x 5" scrapers every two feet. This conveyor travels at a speed of 100 feet per minute and has a capacity of 17 tons per hour. From this bin, this material falls into the third or rewash jig similar in all respects to the first two, which discharges the rock waste directly into a 15-ton refuse bin below and the bone into a short dewatering conveyor which delivers into a similar 15-ton bin from which the bone is taken to the powerhouse. The oversize and water from the shaker screen, the water from the dewatering conveyor for both the washed nut and bone, and the sludge and wash water from the three jigs, are delivered by launders to the first compartment of a three-compartment settling tank. Most of the coarser broken coal is deposited in this tank, from which is it continually removed by a bucket elevator carrying 8" x 5" perforated buckets operated on a 60 degree incline at 200 feet per minute, capable of delivering 25 tons per hour to the 50-ton washed coarse slack bin. The water passes successively through the three compartments of the settling tank and from thence through a six-inch pipe to a centrifugal pump, circulating 900 gallons per minute against a 32-foot head. A four-mesh screen 30" x 72" in the third compartment of the settling tank removes the chips of wood, paper, and the other trash, which otherwise would accumulate in the water. Water is provided from the camp water system, deriving water from the well located in an arroyo bed. During the summer months just passed, the water used, has been 108 gallons per ton of raw nut, or 146 gallons per ton of washed nut. The water meter had not been installed last winter, but it is estimated that operating at capacity, the washery will be found to require only about 75 to 100 gallons per ton of raw nut. It has not been found necessary, nor advisable, to attempt to dry the sludge from the settling tank, nor to save the water from leakage of the tanks and bins. The sludge from the jigs is washed into the settling tank and the sludge from the settling tank is washed through a tile drain to the arroyo. The jigs, shaker screen, circulating pump, washed slack elevator, and the rock handling conveyor, are all driven from line shafts driven by one 40 H. P. motor, each jig driven through a clutch. The belt conveyor and the washed nut conveyor, have separate motor drives of five and seven and a half H. P. respectively. The washer is housed in a corrugated iron building, which is partially heated by steam coils. One attendant is required for operation, regulating the feed of the jigs, the supply of water, removal of the rock, and oiling and maintaining the machinery. The rewash jig is operated only intermittently. About eleven per cent by weight of raw nut is removed as waste and four per cent goes to the washed slack bin. No control analyses of the products have been made; the efficiency of the plant being determined only by the physical appearance of the products; but the washery has been a source of pride and satisfaction to all those connected with it. As mentioned before, it has caused no interruption of operation and it has assisted materially in creating an unprecedented demand for ALAMO nut. MR. CHARLES: If there are any questions, I shall be pleased to endeavor to answer them. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Charles, do I understand it is the nut only that is washed there? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LITTLEJOHN: What did you say the size was? MR. CHARLES: Through three inch round perforations, retained on

Jan 1, 1926

By D. A. Stout

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: Your Secretary has asked me to write upon a subject' which is a most interesting one, and which has a very wide scope. In view of the great need for further decreasing costs at its coal mines, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company began early in 1924 to experiment with methods of mining which had not previously been. tried out at its mines, and which were selected because of the greater possibilities for the concentration of the work, better grouping of workmen, and increased tonnage per workman, with a resultant increased efficiency, better supervision, and lowered costs. Because of the great competition of the day, means and methods must be provided by which fewer mines can be made to produce larger tonnages and at a lower cost. Western physical conditions are such as to make our problems far more complicated and not so easy of solution as compared to many of the eastern fields where conditions are more favorable for the operation of the mines. The dry condition of our Western mines on account of a relatively low humidity, and with additional gaseous conditions, makes the problem still more difficult to solve. A study of new methods was necessary before adoption, and this was particularly true of the method of extracting the coal. Where mechanical means are used, particularly in the coking coal mines of this state, due consideration must be given to the type, and machines or conveyors should not be installed solely on the basis of their performance elsewhere, without the knowledge of local influencing factors. In trying out the newer methods of extraction at our mines, very careful consideration has been given to the question of safety and the adoption of any new methods must provide adequate means of protection to employes, and be approved by' the State Coal Mine Inspector. In any large industry there are a few outstanding operating costs, and usually the leading ones in their order are labor cost, material cost, and power cost. The things which we, hope to accomplish: 1. Reduce labor costs. 2. Reduce material costs. 3. Reduce power costs by the con 4. Reduce the amount of powder used per ton of coal produced. 5. Increase the lump percentage (particularly at the domestic mines). 6. Reduce accidents and annual compensation payment. 7. Reduce haulage costs. 8. Reduce cost for track work. 9. Reduce cost for timber and timbering, and increase the recovery of timber at a considerable additional saving. 10. Reduce the brushing costs. 11. Reduce the amount of rock hauled to the outside. 12. Reduce the cost for drainage. 13. Reduce the cost for ventilating. 14. Reduce cost of inspection and supervision. 15. Reduce the cost for shot firing. 16. Reduction of number of working places. 17. Grouping of men with increased sociability. 18. Increased tonnage per man. 19. Reduction in total number men employed. In the consideration of the methods used and now working successfully, there were three points which were considered outstanding, to make them wholly successful: ventilation, roof control, and transportation. For making the experiments, those mines were selected where conditions

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1923

By J. J. Wilson

To explain in detail the manufacture of seamless pipe and tubes is something I venture to say that has never been done to a point entirely satisfactory. The manufacture of seamless tubes dates back to 1885, when Mannesmann Brothers invented the roll-piercing mill. Ten years later R. C. Stiefel invented the disc-piercer, which first came into general use in this country. At the present time the Mannesmann roll and the Stiefel disc-piercers are used, the Mannesmann rolls particularly for the larger size billets. Sizes produced at first were relatively small and the product was cold drawn to provide a smooth surface. The early uses of seamless material were chiefly for mechanical purposes, such as boiler tubes and bicycle tubing, and the latter for some years taking the heaviest tonnage. Improvements in the hot process were gradually made; the early Pilger type rolls were largely superseded by the two-high rolling mill for rolling out the tube after being pierced, the reeling machine for diagonal rolling, the sizing mill for giving exact outside diameter, and finally the sinking mill for reducing larger diameter tubes to smaller diameters.

Jan 1, 1932

[ ]

Jan 1, 2000

TABLE ONE Accidents occurring in the Coal Mines of Utah by fiscal years: [Deaths ........................ Permanent total disability ...... Permanent partial disability. .... Temporary disability: .......... 28 days and over 14 to 28 days ............... 4 to 14 days ............... Under 4 days ]

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1925

On Monday, June 27, 1921, at 6 p. m., twenty-four members of the Institute from. Colorado and New Mexico, left Denver on the Union Pacific for Rock Springs, Wyoming, arriving there at 9:42 a. m., June 28th. The party was met at the depot by the Rock Springs committee and a large number of the local Institute members. The day was spent in visiting the Central Power Plant of, the Union Pacific Coal Company and adjacent mine, the new 'E Plane, the Reliance, Dines, Winton and Sweetwater coal properties in the district. At noon a very elaborate lunch was served in the First Aid Building at the Reliance mine, which was most heartily enjoyed by all. In the evening the members and friends visited the new Rialto theater and saw the pictorial exposition of the' "Sky Pilot". The evening terminated with a dance in the ballroom of the Masonic Temple from 9:30 until midnight, concluding one of the most enjoyable days which the Institute has ever spent in Rock Springs. At 12:3o a. m. the original party, augmented by six members from Rock Springs, were again enroute to Salt Lake City, arriving there at 8:30 in the morning of Wednesday, June 29th. The Hotel Utah had been selected by the local, committee as the headquarters for the convention, and the majority of the -members at once proceeded to that place where the books were opened and the paying of dues and registration of the members were carried on until 11:45 a.m. At noon a majority of the members were entertained at the L. D. S. Tabernacle with an organ recital, which was up to its usual standard of excellence.

Jan 1, 1921

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

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1926

[W. R. Abbott, 11o8 First National Bank Bldg., Denver, Colo. L. E. Adams, 817 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. Herbert Addison, Big Horn Colliers Co., Denver, Colo. Richard V. Ageton, Brighton Mich. John Alexander, Dacona, Colo. C. A. Allen, 448 Capitol Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. David Allen, Lafayette, Colo. John Allen, Ludlow, Colo. Thomas Allen, Mt. Harris, Colo. Gerald Alley, C. F. & I. Co., Pueblo, Colo. Archie Allison, Box 562, Walsenburg, Colo. D. S. Allison, 56 W. 6th South Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Park Allison, Box 94.0, Rock Springs, Wyo. Howard R. Allonier, care Lunkenheimer Co., Cincinnatti, Ohio. J. B. Ambler, care Ambler & Riter, Engineers, Salt Lake City, Utah. A. F. Anderson, 403 Ideal Bldg., Denver, Colo. W. K. Anderson, 4.23 East Yampa Street, Colorado Springs, Colo. Sam Andrews, 503 Pike Avenue, Canon City, Colo. Jos. Angster, Farr, Colo. William Angus, Somerset, Colo. Joseph Appleton, Ironton Engine Co., Ironton, Ohio. Victor Arnoldi, Ideal, Colo. John Arnott, Crested Butte, Colo. R. M. Atmore, Swastika, N. M. W. H. Backman, 1601 Alcott Street, Denver, Colo. Edward E. Barrett, Roberts & Schaefer Co., Chicago, Ill. G. F. Bartlett, 311 Ernest & Cranmer Bldg., Denver,, Colo. C. S. Beach, Kemmerer, Wyo. Thos. Bertram, Box 134?, Oak Creek, Colo. Charles Beuchat, Pryor, Colo. John Bevan, 1625 North Corona Street, Colorado Springs, Colo. James L. Bisch, Van Houton, N. M. Jos. Bodner, Oak Creek, Colo. A. H. C. Boissier, 302 E. & C. Bldg., Denver, Colo. John M. Bopp, 1615 Walker Bank Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. Edward Bottomley, Carneyville, Wyo. James V. Bowen, Union Coal and Coke Co., Denver, Colo. Alex R. Bowie, Bowie, Colo. John S. Bowie, Bowie, Colo. Wallace D. Bowie, Bowie, Colo. W. J. Bowns, Castle Gate, Utah. L. Brandenburger, 59 West Broadway, Salt Lake City, Utah. James Brennan, Primero, Colo. W. D. Brennan, Dawson, N. M. Burt B. Brewster, 704 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. A. L. Brockman, Sugarite, N. M. Alex. J. Brooks, Supt. Hastings No. 5 Mine, Hastings, Colo. Edward Brooks, Sweetwater, Wyo. E. S. Brooks, Rock Springs, Wyo. D. W. Brown, Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., Denver, Colo. L. E. Brown, 1212 Walker Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. Mark Y. Brown, 629 East Main Street, Trinidad, Colo. H. H. Bubb, Carbon Coal and Coke Co., Cokedale, Colo. W. H. Bullock, 1052 Gas and Electric Bldg., Denver, Colo. Thomas B. Burnite, 523 Boston bldg., Denver, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1921