Logo Museum
Museum
Friends of Durham Mining Museum
Events Calendar
e-Books and Books for sale
Photograph Gallery
Document Archive
Master Name Index
What's new in the site
Mining
Mining History
Colliery Index
Colliery Maps
Company Overviews
Who's Who
Mineral Information
Managers Certificates
Educational Material
Bibliography
Statistics
Workers/Employee Lists
Notes for Family Historians
War Service information
Disasters
Disaster Reports
Disaster Report Text
Disaster Report Name Index
UK Disaster Report Text
UK Disaster Report Name Index
Inquest Texts
Names of those killed
Disasters in the 1700s
Disasters in the 1800s
Disasters in the 1900s
Memorials
Awards for Gallantry
On this day ...

Links to other sites of interest
Industrial Heritage Days Out
Former www.pitwork.net web site

Index to site

Contact and address details

Share Page with Social Media

Share on Facebook

Share with Reddit

Share on Delicious

Reports Prev Page Return to Index Next Page Reports
/   \

CONCLUSIONS.

In conclusion I submit :—

 1. 
The flame originating the explosion was that of the Permitted Explosive Bellite No. 1 fired by an authorised shot firer using an electric battery, the explosive being placed in a properly drilled hole in the pavement of the Low Main seam and stemmed with surface clay.
 2. 
The agents first inflamed were fire-damp, already in the air in the place where the shot was fired, and coal dust, raised as a cloud, from debris lying on the floor, by the rush of gases from the shot.
 3. 
It is not improbable that had either of these inflammable agents been. absent no ignition would have occurred.
 4. 
The extension of the explosion was due to the continued combustion of the same agents but it would not have been extended by the fire-damp alone that was present in the air but would probably have been so extended by the coal dust alone.
 5. 
The Low Main seam to which the explosion was confined was in its normally well ventilated condition at the moment of the explosion except that there was probably some additional quantity of fire-damp in the air beyond the end of the brattice in the place where the shot was fired.
 6. 
The Colliery was generally well managed.
 7. 
There appears to have been a breach of general Rule 12 (b) on the part of the stoneman in whose working place the shot was fired in respect that apparently he brought explosives into the mine not in a secure case or canister but this had no relation to the explosion.
 8. 
If the provisions of the Explosives in Coal Mines Order of the 17th December, 1906, do not override the provisions of General Rule 12 as to watering there was a breach of General Rule 12 (1) or (2) on the part of the Manager in permitting the shot to be fired in a dry and dusty place without either watering as provided or using the explosive "with water or other contrivance to prevent it inflaming gas or dust" or not using an explosive "of such a nature that it cannot inflame gas or dust."
 9. 
The explosion shows the danger of using Bellite No, 1 in a place where fire-damp and coal dust are present and points to the necessity of further precautions under these heads.
 
 (1) 
The necessity of shot firers understanding fully all the conditions of danger.
 (2) 
The provision of some more satisfactory means of testing for fire-damp.
 (3) 
The removal of any doubt on the subject of watering, removing, or otherwise rendering harmless, coal dust on the floor of working places before shots are fired.

J. B. ATKINSON.

 

Prev Page Return to Top of Page Next Page

 

mail
Mail:
Webmaster
Back
Back
Home
Home
Open Government Licence   Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Copyright © 1999-2024 by The Durham Mining Museum and its contributors
Registered Charity No: 1110608
Page last updated: 31 Dec 2022

Privacy Policy
 
Terms & Conditions
 
Search
Search
Print
Print