Search Documents

By Kraig R. Naasz

Jan 1, 2008

The 66th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Opticon Theatre, Snowmass-at-Aspen, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President, Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Shubart welcomed the guests and was pleased at the large attendance, in view of the fact, that the site for the convention had to be changed at the last minute from the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park to Snowmass-at-Aspen. He stated that Joe Ward, our General Chairman, could not be present due to the serious illness of his wife, Thelma. He called on Bob Wilson, Chairman of the Registration and Hotel Committee, to give his report on applicants for membership since the last meeting. Mr. Wilson stated that there were 89 applicants and 242 registrations, an all-time record. A list of new members follows.

Jan 1, 1970

Kenneth M. Payne RMCMI PRESIDENT 1994-1995 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 91st Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 25 thru 27, 1995 Crested Butte, Colorado

Jan 1, 1994

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

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

Jan 1, 1966

[ ] Thomas B. Egan RMCMI PRESIDENT 1996-1997 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 93rd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 28 thru July 1, 1997 Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Jan 1, 1996

ALAN W. CZARNOWSKY RMCMI PRESIDENT 1988-1989 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 85th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 25, 26 and 27, 1989 at Tamarron Durango, Colorado

Jan 1, 1988

Mr. O. F. Lewis opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. lie announced that Stan Shuhart, had the following announcement. to make: Stan. Shubart: George Delamater of Fort, Lauderdale, Florida scads greetings to his friends here at the meeting. O. F. Lewis: Thank yon, Stan. This morning we will start our meeting by turning it over to a very distinguished gentleman. I'm sure all of you know him. He started his work career many, many years ago, but lie doesn't look nearly this old, and his energy belies this. From 1.910 to 1916 he was a chemist with the American Smelting & Refining Co. at. Garfield, Utah. From 16 to '17 he was a broker with J. A. Hogle Company at Salt Lake. From 1917 to 1948 he was a metallurgist, ore buyer, assistant manager and later general manager of the Utah department. ASRC at Salt Lake City; and also president of the Garfield Chemical Co. Since 1951 to the present. time he has been President and General Manager of the Independent Coal & Coke Co. and Vice President of the Western Rock Bit Co. He has held many, many honorary positions; former Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, former President of the Salt Lake Winter Sports Association, Past President. of the Community Chest there, and is presently a Director of National Coal Association, a Director of the First Security Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, and also a Director of the Hotel Utah.

Jan 1, 1965

By Michael A. Berdine

Twentymile Coal Company?s first longwall face in the late 1980?s was oriented approximately 45 degrees to the major coal cleats and 45 degrees to the primary horizontal stresses. This combination of stress and coal cleating resulted in frequent violent bursts of coal along the longwall face. The bursts created particles of sufficient size and force with the potential of causing injury to employees and occasional damage to shield components. Partial web cutting was subsequently developed in an attempt to relieve the stress on the coal face and required the shearing machine to travel to the tailgate and back for a full 36 inch web. The partial web cutting pattern is focused on first cutting the lower 90% of the seam to relieve the stress as the shearer travels from the headgate to the tailgate. The web depth during the headgate to tailgate pass is typically in the range of 70% to 80% and varies with conditions to maximize production rates. The top and bottom of the seam in the remaining 20 to 30% of the web are then cut out to allow the shields and face conveyor to advance. 100% of the web is cut at each gate end for a distance of approximately 19 shields. This paper addresses some general mine geology and the procedures and benefits of partial web cutting with respect to safety, production and maintenance on a high production longwall face.

Jan 1, 2004

By G. A. Knox

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject assigned to me would cover a great many pages if it were gone into thoroughly. Therefore. I have just touched on a few of the most important points. I think that everyone engaged in the production of commercial coal understands all about its preparation, but I will set forth my views as to how I believe it is best accomplished. In order to produce the best prepared coal, your first attention should be to the miner at the working face. The most careful system of blasting should be adopted to avoid heavy charging of holes which results in the shattering of the coal. The lump, or any other screened sizes that may be screened from coal that has been improperly shot, are subject to greater degradation in transportation and handling, as well as reducing screened sizes, which results in dissatisfied customers in the first case, and lower realization in the latter.

Jan 1, 1928

By James J. Bryja

The production capabilities of today?s longwall systems have resulted in significant increases in retreat rates. This has in turn resulted in a heightened demand on panel development rates to assure that subsequent panels are completed in time to avoid a longwall production outage. As a means of reducing the pressure on the panel development activity a trend has developed towards the use of wider face lengths. The aim of using a wider face is to reduce the longwall retreat rate without sacrificing productivity and thereby reduce the pressure on increasing panel development rates. However, as the face width increases so too does the number of hydraulically powered roof supports that are required to control the longwall face roof. This increase in the number of units inherently translates into increases in the level of required maintenance relative to the multitude of mechanical and hydraulic components, and an increase in the time required for tear-down and installation time during the moves between panels. An obvious method of mitigating the maintenance and move-time impacts of wider faces is to employ the use of individual roof supports having a wider center-to-center spacing. This practice would serve to minimize the number of roof supports and maximize the time availability for longwall face production. With this target in mind a joint research project with DBT was initiated in 1998 to study the feasibility of using 2 m wide shields to replace the then standard 1.75 m wide shields. After four years of comprehensive work, the technical team from DBT and RAG American Coal completed the design and development of a prototype shield that would later become part of the world?s widest longwall face employing the use of shields having a spacing of +2 meters. The final spacing of the shields actually became 2.058m in order to match the standard pitch of the rack bar shearer haulage elements on the conveyor. In July 2002, the 2 m wide shields were successfully installed in LW-46 panel at RAG Cumberland mine in the U. S. The authors in this paper summarize the design considerations of and operational experiences with the world?s widest longwall face using +2 meter wide roof supports.

Jan 1, 2008

The 65th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President Joe T. Taylor, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Palo Alto, California. Manager of the Stanley Hotel, who welcomed the guests to the Stanley. After a few remarks, he introduced Bob Dean, for- mer Manager of the Stanley Hotel and again associated with the Stanley, who also made a welcoming talk as Mr. Dean has hosted the Institute at the Colorado Hotel in Glenwood Springs and in Estes Park. Mr. Taylor introduced President Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Stan was raised in the machinery end of the coal industry following the footsteps of his Dad who was one of the founders of the RMCMI in 1912. And following his Dad's years of service to the Institute, 12 of them as Secretary, Stan has been active as Chairman of the Hotel & Registration Committee for 16 years, and, prior to his election as President, was General Chair- man for two years He is a graduate of the University of Colorado with a degree in mechanical engineering. He served our country in World War II and retired as a Colonel, Army Ordnance, after 43 years in the Reserve. He is a Trustee of National Jewish Hospital and was their President for 3 years. He has been active in many Military and professional societies, and in civic projects. I give you our President, Stan Shubart, for his remarks.

Jan 1, 1969

By Eugene McAuliffe

The labor turn-over at coal mines has long been a fertile subject for parade by complaining coal operators, the question invariably occupying a place of prominence in the list of disabilities that tend to increase the cost of producing coal, adding likewise to the now startling number of accidents that occur in coal mines. This disability, however, is like the weather question, which some humorist once remarked of by saying, "The weather is something we all talk about, but nobody does anything to improve it." Endless compilations covering the shift of employment by coal mine labor have been made and published, and while the actual loss expressed in cents per ton in cost of coal produced has never been determined, the fact remains that such represents a substantial item, taking the mines of the country as a whole. Efficiency engineers who have made studies covering the cost of breaking in and training each new man employed in certain manufacturing industries, fix same as averaging not less than $100.00 per man, and when the character of mine employment is given due consideration, including its ever-present hazards, the difficulty of close personal super- vision of individual employes, and the, at times, almost impossible ability to transmit to men of many diverse nationalities understandable instructions, it is quite safe to say that the cost of securing and breaking in new men for underground mine work will fully equal that suffered by the factory managements. When we speak of mine labor turnover we must necessarily exclude the enforced shifting about of men who are laid off by the closure of mines due to accident or lack of market, con- fining ourselves to the turn-over occasioned by- (a) the dismissal of individual men or groups of men; (b) the voluntary resignation of the individual workman. It is these two methods of severance that the employer and employe alike suffer from; the item "Unclaimed Wages" carried in the accounts of every large coal company illustrative of the "quit this job, get another one" attitude of many workmen, who frequently, when leaving, fail to claim small sums due them, while others, in turn, leave a train of debts, large and small, behind. There is' ample evidence abroad to the effect that many

Jan 1, 1925

By T. H. Brien, O&apos

At nearly all of the copper smelters in the Southwest, at some time, calculations have been made having in view the economy of replacing fuel oil with pulverized coal as a heat-producing medium for smelting operations This matter has been, and is more so now than at any time heretofore, of very great importance. Due to the intensive development of oil-producing areas of the world and the tremendous use of fuel oil for many purposes, it seems that before many years the supply of oil will become so small as to prohibit its use for such operations as smelting. This may be caused by prohibitive prices, or even by government decree as a conservation measure. In the event that the use of fuel oil becomes out of the question, the copper companies have just two alternatives: the use of pulverized coal or electricity. The copper companies of the Southwest produced an average of 808,400,000 pounds of copper per year for the war years of 1916, 1917 and 1918. This figure is, of course, a higher one than has prevailed since the war, but at the present time nearly all of the mines and smelters are getting back to capacity. There is no doubt whatever that the consumption of copper is going to increase, perhaps for the next ten years. This means that more copper mines will be discovered and developed, and that the mines which are now producing will be called upon for a greater production. This all tends to show that the mine manager who is looking ahead must develop some substitute for fuel oil in the event of its use becoming prohibitive, and all indications seem to point in that direction. The only coal which is commercially available to the smelters in the district under discussion must come from Colorado and New Mexico. These coals are high in ash and volatile matter and comparatively low in calorific value. The proximity of the smelter to the coal mines is a large factor in determining which fuel is more economical. Most of the smelters within two or three hundred miles of the coal mines find it more profitable to burn coal, while those at greater distance find that the higher freight charges on the coal make the use of oil more economical.

Jan 1, 1923

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

The thirtieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11: 20 o'clock A. M., Wednesday, June 3, 1931, President G. A. Kaseman presiding: PRESIDENT KASEMAN spoke in part as follows: I have in mind to say a few words of welcome to the coal operators, but I am afraid that the words I might have said would be hardly appropriate, because I believe the coal operators are in the minority today. It demonstrates to my mind something that has been running through it for some little time. When the hard times came on a year ago, we thought we were going to get over it rather lightly. I recall at this time a year ago we thought that the depression was about at an end. The National Administration from Washington told us we had reached bottom and things were going to perk up, and for a few weeks or maybe a month or more there was a sort of optimism throughout the country. I had been East, and when I re- turned to Albuquerque I said to my friends and associates that things were getting better in the East and that they would soon be better out here and we will not have felt the hard times very much. But I have learned differently since. I have learned that hard times are no respecter of communities or corporations, or persons, or activities, and that we all suffer alike. On that account we find that our Institute is suffering just the same as other activities, whether national, state, local, social, or what- ever it may be. Our attendance is light or, that account. We all know when times are hard we have to stay at home and watch things closer than when they are good. And when they are good we feel that the machine will run of its own momentum and in this way we can get away to see what is going on in the world. When times are hard we have to stay at home and look after everything from day to day and hour to hour.

Jan 1, 1931

By E. R. Gibson

It is quite generally conceded that the coal mining industry is among the most progressive in the adoption of modern and efficient equipment and mining methods, but most woefully antiquated in many respects in the matter of systematic accounting. The cause of this condition is problematical, but is usually thought to be due to false economy. We realize that those who do not understand accounts, or like accounting, are inclined to be disdainful of accounts and statistics, and to under-estimate the benefits derived from the expense and labor involved in proper accounting. The business that is run without a proper accounting system is subject to haphazard financing and courts disaster. Furthermore, the operator who disposes of his product without due regard to the requirements of the industry as a whole, as reflected in the cost of doing business, is an unfair competitor. No one will deny that the possible production of coal in the United States is much in excess of the demand. While it is true there is an occasional shortage in certain localities, it is due to temporary abnormal conditions which are overcome in a short period of time, when the mines are again obliged to take idle time, and herein lies the danger, not alone to the operator who neglects to keep informed as to operating costs; but to his competitor as well. While physical conditions and operating methods differ materially, accounting methods must likewise differ in some respects, but irrespective of how the result may be obtained, a true statement of cost is absolutely essential. Daily cost statements may be preferred by some, but have proven unsatisfactory, generally speaking, because of variation in production as well as in both labor and material expense from day to day; therefore, we will confine our attention to a monthly cost statement. To be most effective, operating cost statements should be prepared and submitted to the officers as soon after the close of the month's busi¬ness as possible, to enable them to remedy any defects in the operations that might be discovered by an analysis thereof. Opinions differ materially with respect to the most efficient method of compiling and the distribution of labor and material. The writer believes that a time book which provides space in which to enter the number of hours worked each day of the month by each employe, together with distribution thereof, is the most accurate, simple and complete. This record will show the service performed by an employe each day of the month and the account to which same is properly chargeable. This, of course, refers only to the employe working by the-day or month. While there can be but little said concerning the compiling and distribution of miners' wages, as the weighman's bulletin used almost

Jan 1, 1921

By F. M. Van Tuyl

The oil industry had its inception in the United States in 1859 when the first oil well was drilled by Col. Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania. From, a production of 2000 barrels for that year there was a slow but steady increase, with some fluctuations, up to 1901 for which year the output was approximately 69,389,194 barrels. Since that time the production has increased with leaps and bounds due to the rapid rise of the automotive industry, the widening use of oil as a fuel under boilers and the development of the. Diesel engine. The production for 1921 is estimated to have been 469,639,000 barrels. During the same year more than 125 millions of barrels were imported from Mexico. The oil industry, including the production, transportation, refining and distribution of petroleum and its products, is now the third largest in the country. Present Condition of the Industry During and immediately after the war the demand for petroleum exceeded the domestic production plus the imports from Mexico with the result that our storage oil was heavily drawn upon. Prices for crude exceeded all previous levels in the history of the industry. Pennsylvania crude sold for $6.10 per barrel and Mid-Continent crude for $3.50. Such prices stimulated wildcatting greatly with the result that several important new oil pools were discovered. Then as production increased the depression came which caused a large falling off in consumption. Pennsylvania crude fell to $2.25 per barrel and Mid-Continent to $1.00. Large oil companies such as the Standard, Sinclair and Empire took advantage of the situation, erected additional storage tanks and bought up millions of barrels to hold until better prices returned. Prices have already improved owing to a better market, but the domestic production coupled with the Mexican importations is still in excess of the demand with the result that the surplus is being stored. At the close of the year 1921, the U. S. Geological Survey estimates that there were 183,890,000 barrels of crude in storage in this country, the largest stocks in the history of the industry, yet an amount sufficient to supply the country for only 119 days at the present rate of consumption. Price reductions are again anticipated in some quarters but in view of the probable falling off in the Mexican output in the near, future due to the rapid rate of exhaustion of several of the most important pools and in view of the expected increase in consumption of gasoline and kerosene during the spring and summer months it is more likely that the present price level will be maintained. Present Sources of Domestic Supply Seven major oil fields are recognized by the U. S. Geological Survey in the United States. These are the Appalachian, Lima-Indiana, Illinois, Mid-Continent, Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountain and California. Two of these, Mid-Continent and California, supply about seventy-five per cent of the present total domestic output

Jan 1, 1922

The sixth Annual RMCMI Mine Rescue Evaluation was held during the 1997 Institute convention at Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee, co-chaired by Becki Boam and Gary Cook, is one of 18 committees of the Institute. In 1997 the largest number of teams participated in the program. There were nine: BHP Minerals - La Plata Mine, BHP Minerals - Navajo Coal Co., BHP Minerals - San Juan Coal Co., Bridger Coal Co., The Coteau Properties Co., General Chemical Co., The Sabine Mining Co., Solvay Minerals and Western Energy Co. Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the 80 participants were Jack Knight of Milton, Florida; Wilson Begay, Chris Saxon, and Gaylon Yazzie all of Western States Security; Mary Bailey, Bailey Associates; Tom Bass, California Department of Corrections; and Art Saenz, BDC. Seven members made up each team plus one or more trainers and represented the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Ten different scenarios were presented during the two day evaluation. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. Mine Rescue families and friends participated as victims providing realistic scenarios to simulate the stress of an actual rescue incident. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving at the various scenes in and around the Sheraton resort. [ ] These teams are providers of prompt rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. Sponsors who contributed financially to the 1997 program are: Argo Industrial, Antelope Construction, Fisher Safety Supply, Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc; Intermountain Electronics, Inc.; King Energy Services, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, LS.; TerraMatrix and Triune Inc. On Saturday evening, June 28, a reception was held for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for this social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue participants and registered families attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q. This was followed by an adult western melodrama. [ ] Glass awards with the RMCMI logo and a Mine Rescue figure were presented at the Tuesday Mine Rescue buffet breakfast to all nine teams, each of which had achieved proficiency at level 3. Captains of the teams pictured below are (from left standing): Ron Neff, BHP-San Juan; Ted Laughline, Bridger, Terry Davis, Coteau; Jim Knutson, General Chemical (from left kneeling): Dan Allerdings, Rosebud; Ron Miller, BHP-Navajo; Jonathan Sorrell, BHP-La Plata and Ray Blaisdell, Solvay. Gary Cook is to be commended for his solo last minute supervision of the Mine Rescue program, due to Becki Beam's unavoidable absence. The teams look forward to the 1998 convention at Snowmass Village Resort, Colorado Thursday and Friday, June 25 and 26.

Jan 1, 1997

By Sam Andrews

Mr. President, Officers and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: This is my first attempt to prepare and read a paper before your association. The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I understand, was formed for the purpose of increasing knowledge relating to coal mining in all its various branches by study, research and discussion. In writing my paper, I have tried to be as practical as I can, at the same time, present my arguments so that they can be easily understood. When I use the word science, I mean organized common sense. I humbly ask my hearers to be a little patient, while I read my paper, and be "to its faults a little blind, and to its virtues a trifle kind". Western Europe is said to be the cradle of the coal mining industry. We are told that the Ancient Britons were acquainted with the use of coal long before the Romans invaded and conquered their country. The Romans were never too proud to learn from the outer barbarians, and possibly acquired the precious secret from them: We are told that it was not until the 13th century, that the coal mining industry, assumed any noticeable importance in Britain, and on the Continent. In the year 1259 Henry the 3rd granted a charter to the freemen of New Castle on Tyne, allowing them to mine coal. For a long time it was used in the arts and manufactures only, wood continuing to be the common domestic fuel. As has been the case with almost every great benefit, the introduction of coal as a fuel was stoutly resisted at first, and we find its use prohibited in the city of London in the reign of Edward II, by Royal proclamation ; which was soon discovered to be injurious and foolish, and consequently withdrawn. It is interesting perhaps, to know how this Royal proclamation was brought about. A lady of the Royal household was riding in her coach one day through a village in which coal was burned as a fuel, and she suffered such a cough by inhaling the coal smoke that she decided to call a council of suffragetts, who ultimately decided that the burning of coal was injurious to their health and complexion. They drafted out a petition and presented it to the king, who speedily issued the order that no coal was to be burned in the city of London. The penalty for disobeying this order was death by hanging. We are informed of one poor man who continued to burn a lump of' coal on his fire in winter time; he was arrested, sent to prison and condemned to death; the judge in passing the sentence solemnly stating that if he was not allowed to get a fire that was hot enough in this world, he felt that he surely would be allowed one in the next.

Jan 1, 1921