Search Documents

Past President, A. Z. Dimitroff, Supervising Mining Health and Safety Engineer, Health and Safety, District H., U. S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado, opened the Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute at the Hotel Colorado in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, at 10:30 a.m. His introduction of President Charles M. "Dock" Schloss follows: It is indeed a pleasure to call the meeting to order and to welcome you to this, the 58th regular meeting of the Institute. This morning I have the pleasant assignment of presenting to you a person who has been so active in the Institute, and has worked so closely with many of you, that I am sure most of you have known him much longer than I have.

Jan 1, 1962

of our good friends and fellow members: William D. Brennan Charles Beuchat who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1931

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

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

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

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 4, 1952, Albert M. Keenan, Chairman, presiding. CHAIRMAN KEENAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have our third and final clay of our program, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your attendance, both in the past meetings and this one this morning... I am particularly delighted to see that we are all here this morning after the very enjoyable banquet last night. It is a little difficult to get people gathered up after such an occasion.

Jan 1, 1952

The thirty-second regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at ll: 40 o'clock A. M., Monday, February 26th, 1934, President L. R. Weber presiding. Misses Helen Kelly and Marian Rodell presented President Weber with vases of flowers in behalf of the Institute. On motion of Harry Bubb, duly seconded, it was voted that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with, inasmuch as they are printed in the proceedings. The President made hi annual report. The Secretary-Treasurer made his annual report. The following committees were appointed by the President: Nomination s Committee-David Brown, chairman; G. A. Knox, G. C. Davis, George B. Dick, Walter Bachman.

Jan 1, 1934

By Margaret N. Maxey

For the past quarter century, it is fair to say that the political agenda of Western industrialized societies has been driven by those opposed to forms of economic growth providing sustenance to a growing population. They regard growth as the major threat to their social philosophy which champions a wholly "new ethic of biocentric equality" or "living as if Nature mattered." This ethic demands that "a violent, plundering humankind" must abandon its alleged rape of Planet Earth and derive its ethical norms from pre-existing harmonies and fragile, precarious balance present in Nature. A Green political agenda appeals strongly to deep longings shared among many people whose temperament seeks tranquillity in a world of wild natural beauty uncluttered by dependency on tools and experts and specialists. According to proponents of the Green philosophy, our world is pregnant with enormous problems. Armed with expanded political powers, regulatory guardians at state and local levels have mustered their forces with shotguns cocked, poised to prod an ignorant and lazy citizenry to the altar for an exchange of vows with Environmental Ethics. Social engineers have skillfully discredited the traditional role of professionals in scientific engineering who are summarily dismissed as the failed architects of an industrial system pillaging the earth. They stand accused of producing unmanageable offspring - from mining minerals and energy resources to disposing of toxic wastes - whose disputed parentage and expectant crimes against humanity must be prevented by removing them from normal custody. Green critics claim that markets cannot be given custody of industrial offspring - pollutants, wastes, land-use abuses. Markets appear to have failed to provide equity to present and future generations. The only custodian with sufficient coercive power seems to be the regulatory bureaucracy. The upshot is a stark Hobson's choice - Shotgun Wedding vs. Custody Dispute. It derives its fateful predestination from an uncritical acceptance of several preconceptions which currently undergird the altar of Sustainability characterized by its acolytes as "a new and exciting doctrine." It is significant that Limits to Growth slogans of the 1970s have been displaced in the 1990s by the more palatable language of Sustainability. As a policy recommended to forestall an impending doom, Sustainability derives its credibility from dire predictions of global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain and the like. The Rio Declaration announced to the world in June 1992 that, although energy is essential to human well-being, its production and consumption in wealthy industrialized nations is unsustainable. It called for a complete overhaul of energy systems with nothing short of a total replacement of fossil fuels, uranium fission reactors, and large hydroelectric projects by means of so-called renewable energy sources, augmented by coercive regulations to force conservation and limit consumption demands. The social and political consequences of such a sweeping

Jan 1, 1995

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

Jan 1, 1976

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

By Ron Harper

Jan 1, 2006

[Page Minutes 5 The Power Problem of the Coal Mine 8 A. L. Jones. Discussion of A. L. Jones' Paper 13 Why Alternating Current 15 C. E. Drennan. Discussion of C. E. Drennan's Paper 17 Dry Cleaning Coal at Brilliant Mine 26 F. A. Young. The Possible Substitution of Pulverized Coal for Fuel Oil in Smelting Operations in the Southwest 33 T. H. O'Brien. Special Discussion of Paper of T. H. O'Brien by D. C. McClure 35 Discussion of T. H. O'Brien's Paper 40 The Gebo Mine 45 J. C. Rae. Low Temperature Carbonization 52 J. F. McDermott. Safety Discussion 54 Order of Business 57]

Jan 1, 1923

By L. Ross Weber

Gentlemen and guests of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: This is the thirty-second regular meeting of our Institute, and rather than try to make some extemporaneous remarks, I thought it best to write them out, so I could in that way give them to you, and probably give you a new thought for the future conduct of our Institute. The thirty-first regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was held in Salt Lake City, June 22, 23, and 24, 1932, and due to rapidly changing conditions in the coal industry, subsequent meetings have been postponed from time to time, as many of our members and our Secretary have been tied up with code and labor matters. Since our last meeting, at which was discussed problems of vital interest to all of us, especially the production and marketing of coal safely and economically, and the stabilization of our industry, which has already suffered two years of deplorable conditions, almost two more years have been added to the record, but during the past six months miracles have happened, and an industry which formerly was unable to govern itself, has now, through the aid of our Government, at least learned how to make a proper start in that direction. Whether we like it or not, and whether or not the things being done are in agreement with our various political beliefs, without doubt, we are in a much better position today than prior to this transformation. However, it is a pleasure to all of us to note that safety has not been lost sight of in the interim, and without doubt, as later papers and statistics will substantiate, the period since our last regular meeting has probably shown the most remarkable safety achievement of any period in recent history.

Jan 1, 1934

Note this date. This will be the biggest meeting we have ever held. It is arranged so as to permit you to go immediately afterwards to Salt Lake. City to attend the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers there on August 31, September 1, 2 and 3. Notify the Secretary of any change in your address.

Jan 1, 1925

By Melvin D. Nelson

Executive Summary The future of coal as an important energy source in the 21st century will depend heavily on whether or not our industry is recognized for its performance. We have had a major role in powering our nation through the 20th century ... but many today do not understand that role nor do they know that 56% of our nation's electricity today comes from coal. Corporate communications, marketing, and public relations must be a high priority of our industry if we are to survive in the society of the 21st century as a viable energy option for powering our nation. The time to start is now. The place to start is locally. The way to strengthen local and regional efforts is to network on a regional and national level with associations who have the ability and the will to develop effective communications strategies. Introduction The Minnkota Power Systems is a regional association of 26 electrical suppliers. Serving more than 96,000 customers in a 34,500 square mile service area in Minnesota and North Dakota, the association includes 12 municipal utilities, 12 distribution cooperatives, a municipal power agency, and a generation and transmission cooperative. The Minnkota Power Systems generating capacity totals 613 megawatts, and 83% of it is fired by lignite coal. On an annual basis, 80% of our total energy is derived from coal. We are proud of our long association with the coal industry. Our pride shows in the very visible role that coal plays in our marketing and public relations efforts. In 1993, the Minnkota Power Systems had one of the lowest wholesale rates in the country, at 3.1 cents per kWh. Average residential rates were 5.8 cents per kWh. Minnkota Power Cooperative, One of the Minnkota Power Systems, is a generation and transmission cooperative headquartered in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Minnkota's Strategic Plan - Shaping the Future Minnkota recently completed a strategic planning process which is intended to give direction to our future and allow us to proactively influence the shape of that future. Minnkota's mission is to assist the associated systems in Improving the quality of life of their consumers by continuously improving the value of electric energy to the consumer. Our business focus is creating and keeping satisfied, long-term energy customers.

Jan 1, 1994

The 76th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 9:30 a.m. A film-"Once Upon a Time" showing the stifling effect of unnecessary government regulations and the importance of protecting economic political freedoms was shown. Past President, Robert E. Murray, President, Western Division and Subsidiary Companies, The North American Coal Corporation, called the meeting to order. He introduced President Loren V. Linville, District Sales Manager, Industrial Products Division, Uniroyal, Inc. A biographical sketch follows: Loren V. Linville was born on December 29, 1925 on the family farm near Wiley, Colorado to Scott W. and Hazel Linville. He has one sister, a teacher in the public schools and a brother who is an optometrist in Gustine, California. Loren grew up in Lamar, Colo. graduating from Lamar High School in 1944 and spent the folllowing 2 years as a radioman in the US Navy. He graduated from Denver University in 1950 with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. On September 12, 1948 he married Norma. They have 3 children, Linelle, a teacher in New Mexico, Bruce an electronic technician in Colorado Springs and Kevin at home.

Jan 1, 1980

forated, allowing the completion of the removal of wash water. When discharged into the washed nut bin, the coal is moist but carries so little water as to not be objectionable to the trade, nor to give any difficulty from freezing during the coldest weather. The rock and bone from the primary jigs is elevated to a 15-ton bin by means of a single strand scraper conveyor 40 feet center to center operating on a 45 degree incline, carrying 12" x 5" scrapers every two feet. This conveyor travels at a speed of 100 feet per minute and has a capacity of 17 tons per hour. From this bin, this material falls into the third or rewash jig similar in all respects to the first two, which discharges the rock waste directly into a 15-ton refuse bin below and the bone into a short dewatering conveyor which delivers into a similar 15-ton bin from which the bone is taken to the powerhouse. The oversize and water from the shaker screen, the water from the dewatering conveyor for both the washed nut and bone, and the sludge and wash water from the three jigs, are delivered by launders to the first compartment of a three-compartment settling tank. Most of the coarser broken coal is deposited in this tank, from which is it continually removed by a bucket elevator carrying 8" x 5" perforated buckets operated on a 60 degree incline at 200 feet per minute, capable of delivering 25 tons per hour to the 50-ton washed coarse slack bin. The water passes successively through the three compartments of the settling tank and from thence through a six-inch pipe to a centrifugal pump, circulating 900 gallons per minute against a 32-foot head. A four-mesh screen 30" x 72" in the third compartment of the settling tank removes the chips of wood, paper, and the other trash, which otherwise would accumulate in the water. Water is provided from the camp water system, deriving water from the well located in an arroyo bed. During the summer months just passed, the water used, has been 108 gallons per ton of raw nut, or 146 gallons per ton of washed nut. The water meter had not been installed last winter, but it is estimated that operating at capacity, the washery will be found to require only about 75 to 100 gallons per ton of raw nut. It has not been found necessary, nor advisable, to attempt to dry the sludge from the settling tank, nor to save the water from leakage of the tanks and bins. The sludge from the jigs is washed into the settling tank and the sludge from the settling tank is washed through a tile drain to the arroyo. The jigs, shaker screen, circulating pump, washed slack elevator, and the rock handling conveyor, are all driven from line shafts driven by one 40 H. P. motor, each jig driven through a clutch. The belt conveyor and the washed nut conveyor, have separate motor drives of five and seven and a half H. P. respectively. The washer is housed in a corrugated iron building, which is partially heated by steam coils. One attendant is required for operation, regulating the feed of the jigs, the supply of water, removal of the rock, and oiling and maintaining the machinery. The rewash jig is operated only intermittently. About eleven per cent by weight of raw nut is removed as waste and four per cent goes to the washed slack bin. No control analyses of the products have been made; the efficiency of the plant being determined only by the physical appearance of the products; but the washery has been a source of pride and satisfaction to all those connected with it. As mentioned before, it has caused no interruption of operation and it has assisted materially in creating an unprecedented demand for ALAMO nut. MR. CHARLES: If there are any questions, I shall be pleased to endeavor to answer them. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Charles, do I understand it is the nut only that is washed there? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LITTLEJOHN: What did you say the size was? MR. CHARLES: Through three inch round perforations, retained on

Jan 1, 1926

Profiled on these pages are the eight RMCMl 1998 Scholarship Award winners. Six of the eight winners were present as guests of the lnstitute at the June convention at Snowmass Village, Colorado. Each received recognition at the Institute Awards Luncheon Sunday. June 28. 1998. Each state vice president served as host for the collegiate winner and his firm provided travel and hotel expenses. In addition to receiving a plaque from the Scholarship Chairman, Jim Mattern, each winner receives $1.000 tuition credit for the coming academic year, as well as transportation, hotel lodging and meals at convention as guests of the Institute. Because this IS a continuing award, the winners from the previous year also receive a $1,000 tuition credit in their senior year if recommended by the dean of the college or university and if they remain full time students. A resident from each of the eight RMCMI member states is selected from among Board approved institutions. Criteria for these awards made annually is that the recipient (1) Is a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit during the junior year. (2) Be both a U.S. citizen and a resident of the member state. (3) Maintain good academic standing, be pursuing 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 in the mining departments, but in engineering disciplines, such as geology, mineral processing and metallurgy. Through annual donations of $100 or more. the Patrons of the Institute fund the scholarship program. A listing of current donors is found elsewhere in this book. Donations to this worthwhile program are payable to RMCMl Patrons and may be mailed to the RMCMl Office, 3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 324, Lakewood, Colorado 80215. Profiles of the 1998 Scholarship Winners follow. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Christopher L. Delp University of Arizona Christopher is the son of Drusilla and John Delp of Tucson. He is pursuing a degree in Mining Engineering as a junior at the University of Arizona. He enjoys outdoor sports including skiing, mountain biking, golf, and hiking. He also enjoys reading, ghost town and old mine exploration, computer, Japanese conversation, and sketching cars and other forms of transportation. Chris hopes to attain a Masters Degree. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Matthew D. Lengerich Colorado School of Mines Matthew, the son of Judy Lengerich, Durango, Colorado and Ronald Lengerich of Redlands, California, is pursuing his degree in Mining Engineering with a 3.93 GPA. He is a member of the National Honor Society and the German National Honor Society. An avid outdoorsman, Matt also finds time to pursue music and theater. He was unable to attend convention this year as he was on a collegiate trip to South Africa. He is Co-President CSM Newman Group and Youth Leader at Christ on the Mountain Catholic Church.

Jan 1, 1998

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