Search Documents

Jan 1, 1935

By Arline Seeger

Overview ? Lime Basics ? NLA & Its Advocacy ? State of U.S. Lime Industry ? Present & Future ? Lime?s Use in Coal?Conversion Plant

Jan 1, 2006

Albert M. Keenan, President, Thompson Creek Coal and Coke Corporation, Denver, Colorado, opened the third session of the Fifty-ninth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute at 9:30 a.m., and introduced the first speaker of the morning. Raphael J. Moses, Attorney, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Boulder, Colorado, spoke on "The Opportunity for Coal in Colorado River Basin Development." (For the printed text of Mr. Moses' paper see index.) Stephen F. Dunn, President, National Coal Association, Washington, D. C., was introduced by Mr. Keenan, and he addressed the Institute concerning "Coal and the Washington Scene."

Jan 1, 1963

By Jerry M. Eyster

The Bush Administration is committed to reducing emissions from existing power plants Candidate George W. Bush said: The key to reducing emissions from older power plants on the federal level is to cap emissions on a level that makes sense?. And harness the power of the market place and provide economic incentives to produce better environmental results. I would want to make sure that any program we pursue does not result in excessive and unnecessary increases in electric bills.

Jan 1, 2002

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 A. C. Watts

The question of disposition of the slack and dust so troublesome to coal mine operators of the West has been divided by your committee chairman into three heads, viz: The preparation and transportation of fine and powdered coal. The developments along the line of low heat carbonization. The uses to which fine and pulverized coal have been put. The development of low heat carbonization has been assigned to me. This is really not a part of the subject but as it has a most important bearing on the future use of coal, I presume the chairman thought best to include it. An English committee on smoke abatement makes the statement that the burning of raw coal is "dirty, wasteful and unscientific". I will go a step further and characterize it as an "economic crime." It has been predicted by eminent scientific men that eventually no raw coal will be burned for heat or power purposes. All this will take time, experimentation and large expenditure, but it will surely come. The question of disposition of slack and dust so troublesome to coal and utilization of its by-products has been retarded by the abundance and cheapness of the raw coal, and by the abundance of suitable coking coals for metallurgical purposes. But necessity is surely, if slowly, demanding that the enormous waste ensuing from the burning of raw coal for heat and power must cease. For instance, smoke abatement investigations in Manchester, England, showed that the increased cost of household washing was about $1,250,000 per year due to smoke and soot. It is estimated that in London 200 tons of soot and smoke particles are suspended in the atmosphere over that city during dense fogs and that much more than this is emitted from the chimneys each winter day during the forenoon. As an example of what benefits a smokeless fuel gives, it is cited that in the mill town of Shaw, England, the burning of smokeless fuels in the factories has reduced the so-called fogs by about 80%. Necessity, caused by the war led Germany into the field of low tem¬perature carbonization because of the shortage of motor fuel and lubricating

Jan 1, 1922

The 1935 meeting will beheld in Denver, the exact date to be announced later. If you have any sugges¬tions for the place or program, send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1934

The 1933 meeting will be held in Denver in May or June, the exact date to be announced later. If you have any suggestions for the place or program, send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1932

The 1932 meeting will be held June 8, 9 and 10 in the western section, place to be announced later. If you have any suggestions for the place or program; send them to the Secretary at once.

Jan 1, 1931

Winter Meeting Cosmopolitan Hotel DENVER, COLORADO February 27,28 and 29,1928 Business Meeting 10:OO a. m., February 27th Banquet 6:30 p. m., February 27th Dancing 9 :30 to 1 :00 a. m., February 27th Theatre Party, February 28th Special efforts will be made to care for lady guests

Jan 1, 1927

Salt Lake City will hold the Winter Meeting the last week in February or the first week in March. An unusually good program, both technical and social, is being arranged.

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1925

RMCMl PRESIDENT CHARLES W. MARGOLF on behalf of The RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers invites you and your family to attend The 81st Regular Meeting and Convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to be held at Tamarron, Durango, Colorado JUNE 30, JULY 1 AND 2, 1985

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1986

[ ]

Jan 1, 1995

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Before we open the discussion on the Utah mining laws, I want to bring out what I consider a slight misunderstanding on some of the things that I said this forenoon relative to our comparison of accidents. I did not mean to infer that we, as mine officials, are satisfied we have done the best we can to eliminate the accidents, when I was talking about a four-to- one comparison. I do not want any- one to get the idea in their heads that I do not think we are doing all we can. There is not any of us who can state that, even if we better these figures. It is the general understanding that these figures are based upon ratios per thousand man shifts and not upon the tonnage basis that we use. If it were based upon a tonnage basis, I think the figures would be pretty nearly reversed, for we are producing from two to four tons more per man than they do in Great Britain. The discussion will now be continued as I said this morning. There is a gentleman in the audience here that is as guilty of making these laws as I was, and I am quite sure when speaking he will confine himself to the subject of Utah Mining Laws and the prospective results. Before Mr. Monay starts with his paper, I want it understood that this discussion must be finished by 2:30 for the reason that we have still quite a lot of business before us this afternoon.

Jan 1, 1925

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925

By Eli Follett

It is indeed gratifying to note the marked improvement in the methods used in the coal- mines today compared to the methods in earlier days. Away back in the decade of 1900 to 1910 many of the mines were conspicuous for their absence of sprinkling and humidifying systems, as a result much of the natural moisture was absorbed by the dry air current and carried out of the mine and the mine was left dry, dusty and dangerous. This dangerous condition was intensified by large accumulations of fine coal dust on the haulageways where fire flashed from poorly lubricated rollers and bullwheels-trip riders used a torch with a flame reaching to the back of their necks, and large supplies of blasting powder were kept in the mines. Accidents and disasters were very frequent as we, in our ignorance flirted with danger. Staggered by the numerous accidents, and the nature of them; men began thinking along lines of safety, they worked out schemes and after many disappointments succeeded in having, some very whole some legislation enacted covering coal mining operations only to find that much lawlessness was still being practiced by the miners whom they sought to protect; step by step these safety men forged ahead, enlisting the co-operation of a few men about the mine whom they called a safety committee, until, today, we have an ironclad mining law which all have to respect. We have sprinkling and humidifying systems, the miners electric lamp, permissible explosives and many other devices making for greater safety in the operation of our coal mines. Our mines are no longer veritable gasometers and powder storehouses, as I. knew them to be in South Wales, Britain, where I started to work in the mines. Instead, the mines of this day are healthy, well lighted and ventilated workshops and too much cannot be said in the praise of safety engineers who, fought altruistically in their efforts to bring about the wonderfully improved conditions in the coal mines of this day. While the possibility of a mine fire starting, in these days of scientific mining, is remote every one admits there still exists a possibility and to deal with a fire, should one start, most coal miners are equipped with fire extinguishers. Extinguishers of all designs conceivable are on the market, the different extinguishers are charged with different chemical substances, Some are charged with patented chemicals and others with baking soda and sulphuric acid and so on, however, many of them are equipped with about eighteen inches of rubber hose and bear the conventional "FOR FIRE-TURN UPSIDE DOWN" but nothing is said to indicate how close it may be necessary to take the extinguisher to the fire before doing the "TURN UPSIDE DOWN" act, neither is anything said as to what effect the contents may have upon the' hands, face or body of operator should he come in contact with the liquid, nor is any warning given as to the dangers in the fumes which may come from the contents of the extinguisher in contact with the fire.

Jan 1, 1922

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

The morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by Carlyle F. Gronning, Chairman, Industrial Commission, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. The first speaker was John A. Fagnant, Vice President-Sales, Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming. Subject - "Open Pit Coal Mining, Western States." Mr. Fagnant is a graduate of Colorado School of Mines, 1937 Degree, Metalurgical Engineer His career in the mineral industry began at the Arthur Mill of Kennecott Copper Company. For nine years he was with Allis Chalmer Company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as a Sales Engineer in the Mining Machinery Division. Following five years in private business, he joined The Kemmerer Coal Company as a special projects engineer specializing in coal carbonization. He was assigned the job of Sales Manager in 1968 and promoted to Vice President of Sales in 1970. Member of A.I.M.M.E.

Jan 1, 1975