Search Documents

G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress, Washington, D. C., presiding. PRESIDENT HERRES: If you will come to order, please, we will get started on this morning's program. This morning's program takes up the matter of mechanized mining, particularly mechanical loading. There has been considerable progress made in the West with mechanical loading, but we are interested particularly in what is being done in other fields. We are particularly fortunate in being able to have with us Mr. G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress. Mr. Southward has devoted his time for the past several years entirely to a national study of mechanized mining. He is the author of the Year Book published by the American Mining Congress, which is the authority for progress and development on mechanical loading. Mr. Southward has come here from Washington, D. C., particularly for this meeting. We have asked him to speak on the national phases of mechanized mining, and particularly on what is being clone in the East, since we are familiar with what is being done in the western field. I take great pleasure in introducing Mr. Southward. (Applause.) MR. SOUTHWARD: Mr. President and Gentlemen: Before starting on this gaper, I would like to express to all of you and to your President my appreciation in being asked to come here. It is a privilege. This question of coal mine mechanization, as you all know, is a big one. It is too big a problem for any one company to handle and it is through such meetings as these, through the co-operation of the various companies throughout the United States, that we have been able to make the progress that we have made. As Mr. Herres has said, I am not going to try to tell you gentlemen anything that is going on out here, in the West. You already know that yourselves. But he has asked me to give a brief resume of the progress that mechanization has made in the eastern coal states.

Jan 1, 1929

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1971

I have sketches of the radiators, and on this sketch up in here (indicating) we show the line from the fan-exhaust steam from the fan, and the trip spray at the mouth of the mine, which is usually near the tipple, the set of radiators on each side of the entry, exhaust steam exhausting in by the radiators, the small atomizers which I mentioned, and the man sprinkling at the hose. There are times, when at different times we have a man sprinkling during the day time, when he is out of the way, and during the night, sprinkling on the motor roads. I will leave that print up here and let you look at it and if you have any questions you wish answered, Mr. McAllister and myself will be glad to answer them. (Applause.) PRESIDENT PRYDE: . I am going to ask Mr. Hair to leave the sketch on the wall. From the back part of the hall, it is hard to see what is there. The figures are very important. I think one member of this association will be glad to know the cost of water, Friend Littlejohn. MR. LITTLEJOHN: I don't know as I want to ask any questions. The only thing I' would say about the cost there, it is very close to that cost that we tabulated for the Utah Fuel Company at the Utah mines here some time ago. We have not tabulated lately. It may be a little over that at the present time if you take the. labor costs and the material. costs. As I remember, some time ago we did get up some figures and it was, as near as I can remember, exactly two cents per, ton for the labor and material. We haven't got the radiators, etc., that the C. F. & I. have in their mines there, probably due to the fact that we have no shortage of water. We have plenty of that there, and our system is absolutely nothing more nor less than pipe lines, hose and nozzles and the man at the end of the nozzle. PRESIDENT PRYDE: I would like to ask Mr. Hair about the cost of the steam. MR. HAIR: That steam we use there in exhausting, of course, is from the fan, and we have a back pressure valve set right here (indicating), from three to four and sometimes five pounds, and the exhaust from the fan was a five or six inch exhaust, and our exhaust into the mine is nothing less than eight inches, and is practically low back pressure you might say, and all those large radiators, that I spoke of, are heated by live steam, and these probably take a little more coal, but as to just what that cost is I couldn't say. As far as the exhaust steam is concerned, you might as well use it in the mine as discharge it outside. MR. HARRINGTON: Mr. Hair, I would like to ask, is this installation on an intake haulage-main haulage course? MR. HAIR: Yes, sir. MR. HARRINGTON: In the winter time, when it is, say between five or ten degrees below zero, how far into that haulage road does the fogging go? MR. HAIR: Well, that goes in half a mile, sometimes in 3,000 feet. MR. HARRINGTON: Wouldn't that interfere pretty seriously with the motor? MR. HAIR: To some extent, but I wouldn't say seriously enough to interefere with the production of coal. We have one mine we are working in two and three-quarters miles. Our mines are all pretty deep, and we don't find it objectionable. I don't believe that it interferes in the production of coal. I don't believe it makes any more difference between a real cold day in winter time than it does in the summer time. MR. HARRINGTON: I was down at Dawson, and in their mines they have an installation very much like Mr. Hair describes, but we went in there one night and stayed all night, getting a certain amount of data, and the fog was intense for-a full half mile; so intense that you could hardly see your hand in front of your face-see your hand that far (indicating) dis-

Jan 1, 1924

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1953

This session was devoted to Surface Mining. Presiding was Virgil W. Carmichael, Vice President- Exploration, North American Coal Corporation, Bismarck, North Dakota, and John (Jack) F. Ratchye, Manager of Marketing and Resources, Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. Mining District, Sheridan, Wyoming. Subject-The new Federal Surface Mining Regulations-a thorough briefing as to content of law and how it will affect western mining. Introductory Speaker: William Hynan, Senior Vice President, National Coal Association, Washington, D.C. (See index for printed text of Mr. Hynan's paper.) Panel Members: The first speaker was George M. L. Robinson, Senior Hydrologist, Peabody Coal Company, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Robinson has a B.S. Degree from New Mexico University, Portales; Masters in Hydrology, Kent State, Ohio.

Jan 1, 1978

PRESIDENT WETZEL: Gentlemen, the fortieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute will now come to order. It is my pleasure to present Mr. William Fealey, who will introduce the first speaker. WILLIAM A. FEALEY (Bethlehem Steel Company, Salt Lake City, Utah): Mr. Wetzel and Gentlemen of-the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The Governor of the State of Utah was sup- posed to be here this morning, but he heard Bracken Lee was in town and he took a runout powder. So without any further ado, I am just going to present the Mayor of Price, Utah, who is perhaps better known to all of you than anybody else. Mayor Bracken Lee.

Jan 1, 1942

[Adams, E. R Rock Springs, Wyoming Adams, V. H. 422 East San Miguel Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado Allen, Earl W 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B . Box 1920, Denver 1. Colorado Allen, Thomas Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado Alston, G. L Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ambler, J. B Box 591, Denver, Colorado Apperson, A. B. 394 Elm Street, Denver 7, Colorado Arnett, L. L. 325 North First West, Price, Utah Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audin, Clement, Jr Paonia, Colorado Audin, Clement, Sr Box 627, Paonia, Colorado Audin, Ralph Box 285, Somerset, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1952

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

The Fifty-ninth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Hotel Colorado in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:30 a.m., by Past President Charles M. "Dock" Schloss, Schloss and Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Dock introduced Mike Zakotnik, Jr., General Superintendent, The Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming, President of the Institute. His introduction of President Zakotnik follows: Fellow Members, including our charming and beloved secretary, Gussie Whiteside, and our lovely Mrs. Cerise: It is now the appointed time to convene the Fifty-ninth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute which I now declare in session. At our last meeting we elected Mike Zakotnik, Jr., President, and lie has served the Institute intelligently and industriously since his election.

Jan 1, 1963

President Schloss called the third session of the fifty-eighth annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order at 9:30 a.m. and introduced James Westfield, Assistant Director, Health and Safety, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who presided over the session. First speaker of the session was S. L. Jewell, Vice President, Peabody Coal Company, St. Louis, Missouri, who spoke on "Our Three Main Routes From Here." (Biographical sketch of Mr. Jewell, see index.) (For the printed text of Mr. Jewell's paper see index.) Mr. Westfield introduced Marling J. Ankeny, Director, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who served as moderator on the panel, "How Do We Go From Here in Safety?"

Jan 1, 1962

By A. W. Dickinson

Since the day when one of the most progressive of our flat-head for- bears used a pry pole to loosen large rocks to crash upon the head of his, enemy, thereafter making notes of his performance on tablets of stone, the arts of mechanicalization have developed and progressed to the benefit of mankind. In the early coal pits of England the crudest of tools were wielded in the most slavish of toil to win a very small amount of product. In our own country it is but a few years since coal was hewn by negro slaves in the mines of the southland. The past thirty years have brought the use of the mining machine, power drill and locomotive, and we now stand on the brink of the coal mining era that will change the toiler of the mines into a skilled mechanic and render far more safe the winning of the fuel necessary to the nation's need. The ingenuity of our citizens has made it imperative that coal be produced at a lesser cost. Vast supplies of fuel oil have been developed; enormous resources in water power are turning the wheels of many mills and, most commendable but distressing to the coa.1 producers, the high price of coal has resulted in efforts and accomplishment in fuel economies unheard of a short five years ago. The railroads of the United States alone in 1924 accomplished more hauling with $30,000,000 less in coal bills than in 1923. The loading of coal by machines has been under investigation and trial for some time past and in an effort to have its men informed of the practice of the eastern coal fields, The Union Pacific Coal Company sent the writer through a number of states to view as many operations as possible. Notes were taken of machines and processes seen and time was spent with engineers of the various coal companies; also with the United States Bureau of Mines Engineers, particularly Mr. Edwin H. Johnson, who devoted one year to the most careful study of the mechanical loading of coal. The writer wishes, at this time, to acknowledge the helpfulness of the information acquired through contact with Mr. Johnson.

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

President John T. Atkins on behalf of The RMCMl officers and Executive Board, invites you and your family to attend The 80th Regular Meeting and Convention of 'The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to be held at Marriott's Mark Resort, Lionshead Village in Vail, Colorado JUNE 24 - JUNE 26, 1984

Jan 1, 1983

PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Emrick. Mr. Shubart would like to supplement your paper with another article. SECRETARY SHUBART: My paper really should not supplement Mr. Emrick's paper, because I secured some data from him, I knew Mr. Emrick had had a great deal of experience in shearing and I thought he could give you some useful data. (Here Mr. Shubart read the following:) "For the past two years, there has been considerable discussion among coal mining men concerning the advantages of a shearing cut in addition to the undercut, in mine work. We have had a number of requests for information on sheared coal. We were asked questions like these: What percentage increase in lump can be obtained from sheared coal? What has been the experience of mine men who have employed the shearing cut? Is the shearing cut a means of increasing the lump content? If so, is it increased to such an extent as to warrant the installation of shearing machines? Upon investigation it was found that no one could give us any definite information on the subject as no one had weighed separately the grades of coal produced from' the shearing cut. With a view of getting this information first-hand, the Goodman Manufacturing Company built up a shearing machine to be used in experimental work only. The officials of the Troy Coal Company were eager to share in the expense of obtaining this information, so that in May of this year we shipped to their mines our first type 319 shearing machine. The Troy Coal Company operates a mine at Troy, Illinois, in the No. 6 seam and produces about 275 tons daily. The coal seam averages five and one-half feet in thickness. Previous to the arrival of the shearing machine the coal was undercut six feet deep by a' Goodman Shortwall Machine. To break down the coal required two shots in the entries and three in the rooms. The percentage of lump measured over two-inch screens, averaged 58.2 per cent. The conditions of the mine were very favorable for obtaining accurate weights on the amount of lump and slack coal run over the shaker screens. The shearing machine easily cut the entire tonnage of the mine so that all coal dumped into the railroad cars had been produced from a shearing cut, in addition to an undercut. Accurate records were kept of the railroad weights and front this data the percentages of lump and slack were computed. During the month of June the percentage of lump produced over two-inch shaker screens was 69.9 per cent. This result demonstrated that the introduction of the shearing cut had increased the percentage of lump twenty per cent. The entries were driven ten feet wide and the rooms thirty feet wide The shearing cut was made near the center of the face in all places. A hole was drilled in each rib and the coal shot down with one-half the powder required when the places had been undercut only. The coal was broken down to the back of the cut so that very little pick work was necessary to load it out. The benefits derived from the shearing cut were as follows: 1. Increased percentage of lump, thus increasing the average price of coal per ton. 2. Preservation of a tender top due to the decreased amount of explosive used. 3. Facilitated handling of coal by the miner thus increasing the tonnage per man. 4. Eliminated coal yardage in entries and crosscuts of ten feet or less in width for the reason that the shearing cut provides a loose end from which to shoot the coal. This applies to the union fields only, as the non-union mines do not pay for coal yardage. Based on a price of $2.50 for lump coal and $1.25 for slack coal, the average price per ton was increased

Jan 1, 1926

By Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

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

The following pages contain valuable information about the products and services offered by our advertisers

Jan 1, 1982

WILLIAM P BALAZ RMCMI PRESIDENT 1990-1991 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 87th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30, July 1 & 2, 1991 Keystone Resort, Colorado

Jan 1, 1990