Search Documents

Allen & Garcia American Mining Congress American Steel and Wire Company Blue Blaze Coal Company Bogue Supply Company Brandenberger, L. Burke Company, J. J

Jan 1, 1929

By J. H. Emrick

When I was asked to read a paper to you, I wondered what idea I could bring before you which would be interesting and which would be helpful in your work in operating coal mines. The Institute has been studying ways and means of increasing the safety and efficiency of mine operations. Almost every subject along this line has been discussed from time to time. In thinking the matter over it occurred to me that there was one thing used by practically all coal mining companies in considerably large quantities and which in many cases does not receive the attention it should. It is the cutter bit placed in the cutter chains on coal mining machines. Coal mining machines have been repeatedly improved during the last twenty-five years until their efficiency and convenience have reached a high level. The generating units making electrical power to operate them also have been developed to a similar degree. This machinery has been in- stalled at a great expense to coal mining companies and the installation made for the sole purpose of pulling coal cutter bits through coal. Why not then give these cutter bits some attention so as to see that they do their work as efficiently as their driving and propelling units? The consideration of this question easily divides itself into three principal parts-First, the kina of steel out of which to make the bit; Second, the proper form or shape to give it; and Third, the tempering of the bit. Let us discuss them in that order. There have been tried at different times' various grades of steel for cutter bit uses. The cheaper steels, having a very low carbon content (.10 to .30 per cent carbon) have proved un- satisfactory because such steel cannot be tempered so as to produce a satisfactory cutting tool. Because of the low carbon content, it cannot be hardened to retain its cutting edge. It dulls quickly, bends easily on striking any hard obstruction in the coal, and so requires constant resetting to its original form. The high priced alloy steels when properly shaped and tempered will give a bit that would make a clean, even cut in the coal if no impurities were encountered. Such a condition is rarely found. Alloy steel is quite brittle and on striking impurities, such as sulphur balls or a sand spar, is readily broken and so the loss of material through these broken bits and the high price paid for it more than offset all the other advantages which this steel has shown in cutting. Experience has shown that steel having approximately .70 per cent carbon and from .25 to .35 per cent manganese will give the most economical results. Some mines have obtained better results by using a steel of slightly higher carbon content and in some cases a grade of tool steel has been used. The disadvantage of using a steel having too much carbon is that it can easily be spoiled in the black- smith shop by overheating. Steels having a carbon content of about .70 per cent have a sufficiently wide range of temperatures at which they can be forged and hardened so that with ordinary care and attention they are not likely to be burned. Steel of this quality, therefore, has been found to be the most practicable because of its reasonable cost, ease in working and tempering and general durability. In the early days of mining machines, comparatively few bits were used because each machine required but a few bits because there were but

Jan 1, 1925

By William Perry Pendley

Let us go back in time, back to when a Navy veteran from the South was President of the United States, a man from the Rocky Mountain West was Secretary of the Interior and a leading environmentalist was head of the EPA; and there followed what many perceived of as a war on the West-on our water, on our timber, on our oil and gas and mineral exploration, and on our small communities. It's easy to think that I'm talking about the administration of James Earl Carter, III of Georgia, but I'm not. I'm talking about this administration, the administration of George Herman Walker Bush of Texas. I say that as a life-long Republican who never voted for a Democrat and who worked hard to put George Bush in the Oval Office. Many of us wondered, in 1988, what Vice President George Bush meant when he said; "I am an environmentalist." Well, now we know. In his State of the Union address, which was otherwise lacking in specific detail, George Bush said two very specific

Jan 1, 1990

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

The 69th 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 Joseph E. Ward, former District Manager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. and now retired. Mr. Ward, after reading a brief biography of President O. F. "Os" Lewis, introduced him to the assembly. Biographical sketch read as follows: Mr. Lewis is President, General Manager, and a Director of Colowyo Coal Company. "Os" was born in Reno, Nevada. He attended the University of Utah at Salt Lake City, Utah, and later the Denver University in Denver, Colorado. His career in the Western Coal Industry started back in 1923 when he was employed by the Central Coal and Coke Company of Salt Lake City, Utah, as a clerk, then chief clerk and as a traveling sales representative for a period of 13 years. Later, in 1936, when that company was acquired by an affiliated company of Harris Coal Company, he was transferred to Denver as Assistant Sales Manager, Purchasing Agent and later as Executive Assistant to the President.

Jan 1, 1973

The fifth Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held June 29 through July 2 in conjunction with the 92nd RMCMI Convention. Eight teams from four states participated. They were: BHP La Plata Mine NM Capt. Jonathon Sorrell BHP Navajo Mine NM Capt. Ron Miller BHP San Juan Mine NM Capt. Albert Nelson Bridger Coal Company WY Capt. Ted Laughlin Coteau Properties Co ND Capt. Terry Davis Kerr-McGee Coal Corp WY Capt. Elvin Stanton Sabine Mining Company TX Capt. Spencer Thompson Solvay Minerals WY Capt. Ray Blaisdell Activities started with a Rope Rescue class taught by John Peleaux, from Innovative Access, at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. The Mine Rescue Reception, Team Meeting, and Equipment Inspection was held Saturday evening. All participants received a T-shirt and cap. The Mine Rescue Evaluation started Sunday morning and ran until it was rained out around 3:00 p.m. There was a team swap meet Sunday evening at which teams bought extra caps and shirts. They also traded with other teams. [ ] The Evaluation resumed Monday morning and ran until mid-afternoon. The Evaluation was made up of seven stations. There were six scenarios and a written test. Teams were also challenged by a 14-foot confidence course wall to get their team over. The teams were evaluated by: Jack Knight Champion International, Pensacola, FL Becki Pickert Colorado Northwestern Community College, Craig, CO John Peleaux Innovative Access, Evergreen, CO Lynn Busskohl Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Lenny Altenburg Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Elvin Stanton Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY Clarence Baker Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Gillette, WY The victims for the scenarios were from the Kerr-McGee Mine Rescue-Team. They were: Dana Cooper, Doland Zink, Suzanne Ott, Mike Szuma, and Craig Moore. Also helping as a victim was Candy Cobb from Casper, WY. [ ] The program concluded Tuesday morning with the Awards Breakfast. A medical kit, donated by Strategic Supply, was given to the Solvay Minerals Team for the fastest time over the confidence wall. Engraved stone awards were given to the teams indicating the rating they achieved. Four teams received Level Ill (The highest rating) and three received Level II. The Kerr-McGee team also received an award for helping put on the evaluation. Additional stones were presented to Jack Knight, John Peleaux, Becki Pickert, and RMCMI President. Marcie Greenberg. The current plans for the 1997 Mine Rescue program are that Jim Andrews with Colowyo Coal will assume the chairmanship. Goals for next year are to increase funding and participation by establishing sub-committees or task groups. With the chair located in Colorado, coordination of the evaluation should be easier. Comments from all the teams were positive and they intend to return next year at Steamboat Springs. [ ]

Jan 1, 1996

The 67th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the C'est Bon Hotel, Park City, Utah, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Company, Carbondale, Colorado. Mr. Reeves introduced President Max A. Robb and read a brief biography as follows: A Westerner by birth, he has chosen to pursue his mining career with United States Fuel Company, a subsidiary of United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company. United States Fuel Company is the largest underground producer of commercial and utility coal in the Intermountain West. Max attended Utah schools and has kept his education current through correspondence courses in mining technology and business education, and through attendance at various university-sponsored development seminars.

Jan 1, 1971

T. W. BUTLER JAMES CAMERON WILLIAM MORGAN J. F. CALLBREATH FRANK C. MILLER J. T. RYAN BENEDICT SHUBART 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, 1941

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

Jan 1, 1995

Pictured on these pages are the seven RMCMI Scholarship Award Winners for the 1992-93 year followed by a brief profile. All winners were present as guests of the Institute at the June convention in Beaver Creek, Colorado to receive recognition at the Institute Awards Luncheon Monday, June 28. 1993. Each state vice president served as the host for the collegiate winner. In addition to receiving a plaque from the Scholarship Chairman, Alan Czarnowsky, each winner receives $750 tuition credit for the coming academic year. As this is a continuing award, the winners from the previous year will receive another $750 for tuition credit in their senior year if they have maintained good academic standing and are recommended by their university. A resident from each of the eight RMCMI member states is selected from among Board approved institutions. Criteria for these awards to be made in the spring annually is (1) That the award be made to a sophomore student and used as tuition during the junior year. (2) That the recipient be both a U.S. citizen and a resident of the member state. (3) That the recipient have good academic standing, be pursing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in Western coal as a possible career path. The scholarship program includes curricula other than those in the mining departments, but in engineering disciplines, such as geology, mineral processing and metallurgy. Contributions to this worthy project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his firm. Through annual donations of $100 or more, the Patrons of the Institute fund the scholarship pro- gram and the various vice presidents contribute the travel expenses to convention for these outstanding young collegiates. Donations to this worthwhile program may be made payable to RMCMI Scholarship and mailed to the RMCMI Office, 3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 324, Lakewood, CO 80215. Profiles of the 1993 Scholarship Winners follow. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Kevin Shirley University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona A member of the Student Chapter - Society of Mining Engineers, Mr. Shirley also belongs to the Campus Crusade for Christ organization. He enjoys baseball, basketball and football. He states, "Miners are meeting the demand of the public by providing energy fuels and minerals to support the standard of living we enjoy. It is sad to see people out of work in this country, but the third world is largely undeveloped, and many jobs are moving abroad." 'I consider winning the RMCMI scholar- ship a great motivator; your belief in me will help me become my best." [ ] COLORADO WINNER Derek Rawson Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colorado "1 have been enthusiastic about the mining industry since I lived in Divide, Colorado and spent time exploring the old mine sites." Derek says. "President Clinton may hit the mineral industry with many reforms, but I believe self sufficiency is important ... we need to produce here in the U.S. what we consume." Mr. Rawson is involved with intramural sports and varsity track. He is a member of the Society for Mining, and Exploration, Inc.; Colorado School of Mines Caving Club; Colorado School of Mines Shooting Club; and Alpha Tau Omega Leadership Fraternity.

Jan 1, 1993

PRESIDENT OLIVER: May I have your attention, please, gentlemen? The Forty-Fourth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain, Coal Mining Institute is now In session. I want to say just a few words of welcome to all the delegates this morning, both old and new. There is a large group of men around here I notice who come to this meeting year after year, and it occurs to me that they must be getting something worthwhile out of these meetings, the renewal of old acquaintances, the making of new acquaintances, and the opportunity to find out what is doing in the technical end of the coal business, and what is new. So, we greet you enthusiastically and trust that you will find this meetnig on a par with all those which have gone before and. that each one of you will leave these sessions determined that you will not miss next year but will be back again. So, with that introduction, we will proceed with the business of the convention. As time is fleeing away from us, if there is no objection, I wil lentertain a motion to dispense with the reading of last year's minutes. Will somebody make that motion? MR. H: C. MARCHANT: I move we dispense with the reading of last year's minutes. (The motion was carries unanimously.)

Jan 1, 1948

By Thomas Collier

MR. PRESIDENT AND CO-WORKERS IN THE COAL INDUSTRY: I was requested by our president to prepare a paper on Longwall Coal Mining, to be read before this honorable organization. There are three general systems of Longwall, Longwall advancing and Longwall retreating, and the Nottingham system which is worked in England and South Wales. In Fremont county, where I am employed, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company are working their mines on the advancing system. The face is started generally from the bottom of the shaft or other mine opening, or, at the outside of the pillar left to support the shaft or slope-bottom and advances toward the boundary of coal area. As the roads in this system are maintained by pack walls, it is sometimes called gob-roads system, and by these means the mine is opened up rapidly and consequently early returns are secured from the capital invested. By this method, there is no expense for narrow work, and a minimum amount of timbering of the roads is required. Now what I call ideal Longwall work is where there is about eight inches of dirt mining-and four and one-half feet of coal, .and when the entries and rooms will gob themselves, so that there will be no rock or dirt to haul out to the surface. But this is not the case in the mine I am in charge of. The entries and rooms will not gob themselves, therefor we have to haul the rock and dirt to the surface, which runs up the cost of production. Now the ideal roof in Longwall is composed of tough elastic and pliable strata that yield gradually by bending when the coal is removed, and throwing a sufficient weight or roof pressure on the coal face to break the coal when the same has been mined or undercut. Timbering should be done systematically, the coal well spragged before the miner starts to undermine the coal. Cogs or cribs are alright in their place, but I am not a believer in crib in Longwall working because they are too strong for the roof and do not leave the roof to squeeze .down gradually and break the roof around the crib. Longwall work requires particular skill on the part of the miner, and a familiarity with the conditions affecting room and pillar work, and a good room and pillar mail may not be successful in. Longwall work. A good Longwall miner realizes more than any one else the importance of being regularly at his place every working day. A day lost causes his place to fall behind the others which makes his work harder, and his daily output is further reduced by the amount of small coal that is liable to result from the excessive pressure where the face falls behind. The bad results are also felt by the miner working on each side of such place, as the roof pressure is often insufficient and the coal does not break as well as when the face is kept in a uniform line.

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 1984

By George B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of disasters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

By Geo. B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching. all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of dis¬asters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

By Eugene McAuliffe

The subject of my few remarks addressed to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, "Guessing or Knowing! Which," may perhaps suggest but little to you here today. However, I am sure you will all agree with me when I say that in the conduct of a coal mining operation there should be no choice between guessing and knowing. The value of, and the results to be obtained from this Institute, its meetings and printed transactions, as well as those of other similar educational organizations, depend very largely on the mental attitude of those who constitute, through their pronouncements, the more active portion of the membership. Perhaps the most apt criticism that is now being made of the coal industry is that, to an extent possibly exceeding any other industry of similar magnitude and importance, it depends for its conduct altogether too much on "rule of thumb" and "tradition," rather than on proven practice and actual fact. The records of our coal mining association meetings bear expression of many conflicting opinions, the majority of which are sincerely put forth by those expressing same as representing the facts; the extremes expressed, however, frequently fix the question raised as one yet located in "no man's land." There are yet too many chances taken we are still "weighing pounds on railroad track scales" and measuring yards with the proverbial "bit of string." The actual expense of conducting any one of the several operations incident to the production of coal is rarely determined, and in many instances the general cost figures, prepared some weeks after the work is complete, are of that sweeping character that very little can be abstracted therefrom. Many coal companies are now making a daily cost sheet, showing the cost of labor and material in detail, as used in the several related operations,, and such is decidedly helpful, particularly to the mine superintendent and his foreman, who, without such, sail an uncharted sea; the auditor's belated monthly summary rarely ever seen by these men who are held responsible for the labor and material used. I have made reference to this situation as an accentuation of the fact that the coal industry contains more "serious minded, conscientious guessers" than does any other similar industry, although the annual cost of our product runs up well beyond the billion dollar mark, and what is more important, our industry is one that still continues to exact a heavy toll of human life. Now this brings me to the question of safety, the one question that should be, and which is, I know, uppermost in your minds. The coal mining world, engineering and operating, is now well sold on at least two things the theory of using permissible explosives and the elimination of the open light. Furthermore, the industry, particularly that portion which is located in Great Britain and the United States and Canada, are now planning vast extensions of the use of "rock" or "shale dust," both in the form of "dust barriers" and in "direct application" to entries and cross-cuts. This is well; however,, my study of past mine explosions has convinced me that the great majority of such had their very beginning in gas accumulations; frequently originating in restricted areas at the working face, in abandoned worked-out areas, or in some other certain place where ventilation is not, maintained as it should be; and that again leads me to the point where it can again be well said, that there is too much "rule of thumb," too much guessing now being done in regard to the volume of air required, and continuously furnished, in a given entry,, panel, room or area. Just to emphasize this situation, is it not a fact that the majority of mine inspectors express the ventilation conditions as measured by them, in terms of cubic feet per man employed, in each certain split, and does not the mining laws of many states yet demand a minimum of "100 or 150 cubic feet

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1959

By Wm. H. Woodhead

Improved methods of mining have accompanied the introduction of mechanical loading, of which there are a great many varieties, but this multiplicity of mining brings new problems and greatly increases the importance of managing over a few years ago. Few mines operating today have been opened with the intention of mechanizing throughout. The problem of mechanization is to change over a mine heretofore operated by hand methods and to select machinery that will fit the old system with the least number of changes, the aim being not to disrupt or to completely change the original plan. The organization of mechanical and electrical forces is a problem in mechanical loading, and each individual mine presents its own problems. Plans which may succeed in one mine may fail in another and upon the management rests the responsibility of deciding the best method in each case.

Jan 1, 1930

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I have every reason to know Mr. Pryde was carrying out some experiment a while ago in some of his mines. He and I had a little correspondence on the question, and I think he may have a word or two to say about it. He has not been on his feet today at all. I will ask Mr. Pryde to tell us what he has to say. MR. PRYDE: I have not very much to say about shooting coal with permissible powder as far as slack is concerned because we are not in the commercial business. All of our coal goes to the railroad and a very large part of it is crushed for use in the stokers of the locomotives. We are on a 100 per cent permissible powder basis and as far as I am able to see, I do not believe that the percentage of slack is increasing with its use. We find it hard to convince our commercial neighbors of this fact because they are naturally very much against increasing their percentage of slack on ac- count of the low price received for this grade of coal. I, personally, believe that where a change is made from black powder to permissible powder the percentage of slack will be increased for a time because the miners have been accustomed to using black powder and they are rather suspicious about going to the permissible powder and I do not believe that we can blame them very much. So the tendency with them is to use too much powder. We have gradually overcome this, although, as I said before, we have not kept close track of the production of slack. However, we try to get as large an amount of lump coal as possible. Broadly speaking, I can say from observation that in my opinion there is very little difference in the percentage of slack with the use of the permissible powder that we have today than there was with the use of black powder. I also get this information from our mine superintendents. Mr. Peterson and the other explosive men have been very helpful to us in the use of permissible powder and I confess I have to take everything back that I said several years ago. At that time I was against permissible powder, particularly on account of the cost, but, with the newer permissible powder, we have gotten the cost down very well. I know today that the cost of permissible powder in the coal mines of the Union Pacific Coal Company is less than when we were using black powder. I know this because of the fact that we kept a record of the number of tons we got with black powder, and the number of tons we get with permissible powder compares very favorably in cost. I know this, too, because of the fact that our employes, except in the first few weeks of using permissible powder, have made no demand upon us for any in- crease ill pay to offset any added cost that might accrue in the use of permissible powder and the fact that they have asked for no increase is very conclusive proof to me that it is not

Jan 1, 1925