Search Documents

By Ron Harper

Jan 1, 2006

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

At the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, G. S. Rice, Chief Mining Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, announced the definition of a gassy mine. This definition has been awaited with much interest, especially by the Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. It applies to the whole area of all mines, any part of which is on the public domain of the United States. Consequently it will be of wide application in the western part of this country. The safety committee of the R. M. C. M. I. has been hopeful that the Institute would adopt this definition without exception as the codes of rules to be recommended at all mines in the Rocky Mountain area. The statement follows: "The U. S. Bureau of Mines believes that all coal mines are potentially gassy; but for purposes of administration in respect to prevention of explosions and fires, the Bureau recommends the following classification: "Class 1 coal mine-A practically non-gassy mine in which flammable gas in excess of 0.05 per cent cannot be found by systematic search. "Class 2. coal mine-A slightly gassy mine in which (a) flammable gas has been found, ? but in quantity less than two per cent in still air in any active or unsealed-abandoned workings; or (b) flammable gas can be found, but in quantity less than four per cent, in some place from which the ventilating current has been shut off for a period of one hour; or (c) flammable gas can be found,* but in quantity less than one-fourth per cent in a split** of the ventilating current; or (d) flamamble gas is found in quantity greater than' specified rate*** of not more than 25 cu. ft. per minute. "Class 3 coal mine- A gassy mine in which flammable gas is found in quantity greater than specified for a Class 22 coal mine. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING DECISION NO. 3 "(A) Flammable gas found in coal mines is, with rare exceptions, methane. In coal-mining fields where natural gas is found in lower geologic horizons by deep wells which pass through or nearby the coal mines, there have been rare instances of la leakage from the well. Natural gas is chiefly methane; that constituent almost always forms more than 85 per cent of the whole, but it usually contains ethane, propane and traces of butane also. Therefore if the latter gases are found in mine air it is an indication of leakage. The lower limit of explosibility of methane-air mixture when there is turbulence of five per cent and of natural-gas-air mixtures with about ten per cent ethane and associated hydro-carbon gases is 4.6 per cent. The limit therefore varies with the character of the mixture. " (B) To determine the proper classification of a coal mine, it is advisable that systematic testing and sampling be done at least three times in a period of not less than 72 hours. All tests and samples of the mine air, except one, must show an inflammable-gas content less than the maximum limit of the class to which the mine is assigned. In other words, a tolerance of one test or analysis may be permitted to provide for a mistake or a very exceptional occurrence. "(C) When a new mine is being opened in a coal field where existing mines are generally gassy, it is common sense to assume that similar conditions will be found in the new mine, and its development and equipment should be based upon the expectation that it will be assigned to Class 3."

Jan 1, 1926

The ninth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation was held in conjunction with the RMCMI 2000 convention at the Sheraton Tamarron Resort, Durango, Colorado June 25 thru 27. The purpose of the mine rescue evaluation program is to provide an opportunity for mine rescue teams to learn new skills and improve their existing ones in a non-competitive environment. Several staged "disaster" scenarios were [ ] held where the teams are called upon to exhibit their life saving abilities. The evaluators meanwhile are offering suggestions, both verbal and written, to help the teams better understand the situations presented them. This non-competitive environment allows the teams to work together and share their knowledge with fellow mine rescue teams providing everyone with a positive learning experience. Mine Rescue Chairman Bill Balaz was in charge of coordinating the events. Seven teams consisting of seven to ten members each (totaling 63 members) participated in the two-day event. Each team was required to respond to three different real-life scenarios plus a written general knowledge test daily. This year's four professional evaluators included Art Saenz (Hazardous Materials) of Western Envi¬ronmental Associates; Guy Horton (Ropes), Guy Horton Rope Rescue; Mary Bailey (Medical), MBA Training and Ron Lauer (Confined Space) also lassos Western Environmental Associates. They cash prov- [ ] ided three different challenging mock situations per day per team. The teams had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios would be as details were provided only as they arrived. Ten volunteer victims added much drama and excitement to the event. Their realistic enactments, complete with false blood makeup and severed limbs, made for some very tense scenarios. The Mine Rescue Teams participating this year were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navajo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Longview, Texas; Solvay Minerals, Green River, Wyoming and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, Montana. Many new [ ] friendships were made and much knowledge shared. A swap meet was held Saturday afternoon for the teams to exchange miscellaneous equipment, hats, shirts, etc. The teams were asked to evaluate the program and the evaluators. Then responded with many positive suggestions that will help improve the upcoming events in the years to come. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning awards breakfast where the teams were presented with plaques. The participating victims and evaluators were also commended for their outstanding efforts. Sponsors for the Mine Rescue program were Big Sky Coal Company, CMC Rescue, Magnum Metals, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Electric. Many hours of volunteer time and effort from various family members of participants helped make the 2000 event a huge success.

Jan 1, 2000

The nineteenth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute at Rock Springs, Wyoming, was called to order in conjunction with the Wyoming State Safety and First Aid Meet, at 2 p. m., Thursday, August 7, 1924, by President William Littlejohn of Castlegate, Utah. Meeting opened by invocation by Father Welsh. Address of Welcome by Mayor P. C. Bunning and key to city presented to President Littlejohn. Response to address, of welcome made by President Littlejohn. Minutes of the last regular meeting read and approved. Report of officers: Financial statement by Secretary-Treasurer Shubart, who stated that there was $1,225.68 in the treasury and requested that the report be referred to an auditing committee for examination and approval. Motion by Mr. Pryde that the report be referred to an auditing committee. Seconded by Mr. Robinson. Carried. A committee of three, consisting of Messrs. Murphy, McKeehan and Gibson, were appointed by President Littlejohn to examine the report, and approve it. As no time was found during the meeting, the Committee was instructed to report later by mail. Report of Standing Committees: Mr. Pryde stated that the report of the Safety Committee would he presented at the morning session, August 8th. Report of Special Committees: None. Unfinished business: President Littlejohn stated that some action should he taken on the interchanging of certificates in the four states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. A committee should probably be appointed from each of the states, and the matter left in their hands to try if possible to get their legislators to put some law into effect which will make the certificates in all these four states interchangeable. President Littlejohn also stated that the subject had been brought up, through correspondence, of changing the emblem of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, which is the old oil lamp, and that he had had a letter from Mr. C. M. Schloss, who stated that inasmuch as the old oil pit lamp was symbolic of mining it should be retained so that unless someone had any

Jan 1, 1924

By I. N. Bayless

The subject of Premium Payments for Mechanical Loading was given consideration by the management, having in mind they would prove an incentive for increasing the tons per man shift, make for a lower production cost and allow the ambitious workman an opportunity to augment his earnings over the regular day wage rate, a standard of performance having been established by the operator which would be expected from the employee. Any performance above the standard is looked upon as a saving to the operator of which the employe benefited to the extent of receiving a certain percentage of the saving effected. The premium must be high enough to be worth while to the employee and low enough to in¬sure a saving to the employer. This method of sharing tends to pay men in accordance with their ability and effort. One of the principal advantages of this method of sharing is that a better class of labor may be attracted. Greater earnings furnish an incentive to increased tonnage. Workmen who prove themselves aggressive are readily noticed by supervisors, and, by shifting men to different places and to different working conditions, the crews are made more efficient and the inefficient workmen may be singled out and eliminated, thus permitting better results and better operation of the mechanical loading equipment. This is also evidenced by the fact that men become their own competitors, also working in competition with other crews. In order to do this, without neglect to the care and protection of the loading machines, men are educated to the proper handling and care of the machinery, keeping it in shape and everything clean in general, which has shown good results.

Jan 1, 1932

[ ]

Jan 1, 1993

By S. W. Farnham

Those who remember the years of patient effort and the slow results obtained in the first introduction of electrical coal cutters and locomotives will, I think, admit that mechanical loading of coal is unquestionably being established at a much more rapid rate than any previous application of machinery to reduce manual labor in mines. There are many operators who consider the progress of the loaders today as slow, but considering the number of years it took to thoroughly establish electrical coal cutters and locomotives, and comparing it with the short time that the mechanical loader has been on the market, and the results that have been obtained today, they will admit, I think, that the progress of the latter is much more rapid. It is about 35 years since the advent of the electrical coal cutter and electric locomotive. Their use has brought about these improved conditions, increased tonnage per mine and other features, which are of assistance to the installation of mechanical loaders. The management and the technical staff in practically all of the American mines are trained in the use of electrical machinery and understand its operation, care and maintenance. . There is frequently, a surplus of electrical power and wiring available to take care of the small requirements of the electrical loader. The mechanical loader, therefore, starts today with the ground prepared for it. Those manufacturing companies who have had years of experience in the design and construction of mining machinery, know in a large measure what to incorporate in their designs to make the parts of the new type of machine effectively strong and to operate with efficiency under the severe conditions encountered in mining service. All these advantages greatly assist the success of a new type of machine such as the mechanical loader. In spite of these advantages, however, there are bound to be some failures. All new types of loaders have to be developed. We hear of some that are a success and some that are set aside. The field of application of each type and its limitations first must be determined by actual operation. The earlier loaders had to be changed and improved in design as weaknesses developed. Not all of the new types of coal loaders have been built by mining machinery manufacturers of long experience, and the lack of experience in this line is responsible for some of the early failures. The coal mining company staffs and also those of the loader companies had to learn what the operating factors were that made mechanical loading a success. The difference in results obtained by loaders in different properties under similar physical conditions indicates that the mine management is a very large, if not the major factor, affecting the efficiency of mechanical loading. Many articles have been written on the question of loading. The subject has been quite fully discussed at recent coal meetings and in the technical press. It is not always as easy or simple a matter to form conclusions as may first appear as to one's own particular loading problem. Mechanical loading is a comparatively new art, and many companies while claiming that loaders are quite successful, do not have an accurate line on the actual saving they are affecting. Many of them have only a few of the factors taken into account in their costs. Many loaders have been generally bought without very careful consideration given to all details and except where extremely favorable conditions prevail, failure resulted. When contemplating the installation of mechanical loading, one naturally desires to select the type of loader that will, fit his mining conditions. The things

Jan 1, 1924

By George Cherpelis

1. Historical Background of the Employment Relationship A. The Relationship at Common Law 1. Jacob & Rachel 2. Domestic Relations 3. Statute of Laborers (Black Plague) 4. Puritan View (idleness as the parent of all vices) 5. Shift from law based on status to one based on contract B. Enforcing the Employee's Promise to Work I. Forced Labor a. English law b. Thirteenth Amendment 2. Forced Labor vis a vis Forced Performance - Role of the Court 3. Prevent working for another employer C. The Employer's Promise of Employment 1. Originally employment was considered of personal nature and employer could not be forced to employ or continue to employ 2. Impact of modern statutes

Jan 1, 1984

MR. MARGOLF: Our final speaker this afternoon before we have an opportunity for some questions for the members of the panel, is a gentleman who has spent more than 40 years in the newspaper industry. He started out as an office boy while he was still in high school. He worked his way through college working for a newspaper in Lexington, Kentucky where he graduated from the University. He has a long association with the Albuquerque Tribune but what brings him here today is in his position as editor of The Rocky Mountain News which is certainly one of our largest circulations. I think it is the largest circulation newspaper in the Rocky Mountain states. Ralph Looney, in that

Jan 1, 1982

By R. Dawson Hall

R. DAWSON HALL (The Coal Age, New York City) : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I do not feel that I have anything in particular to say. I have not prepared anything for an occasion such as this. I just came from New York City, and as one man said to me today, "That is not any recommendation in particular." (Laughter.) In answer to your request for a few remarks of a timely character I would say: One of the possibilities in the Rocky Mountain Region coal mines is the use of steel arches, posts and straps. The timber of the region seems unusually subject to dry rot and does not last long, especially in those places as in southern Wyoming, where the mine atmosphere is likely to contain a large quantity of carbon dioxide. It is true that, in many mines, much care is taken to drive out this gas and to arrange that the timber will have the fresh air that will prolong its life, but despite such provision much timber is subjected to speedy rot. Steel has made rapid progress in England, Germany and France and is recognized as an economy, not an extravagance. Frequent replacement of rotting wood and removal of broken rock are a source of great waste, risk and inconvenience in operation that together spell great cost. The very dryness of the mines and the lack' of acid water are favorable to the use of steel where support of roof or sides is necessary.

Jan 1, 1932

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

By C. H. Trik

Any article or discussion on the ventilation of Working Faces under different systems of concentrated mining is of little value to any practical man unless based upon facts gleaned from actual experience, and empirical data on this subject is, to say the least mighty scarce. Of this one thing, however, you can rest assured, the old cry of "no air at the working faces" will have become a thing of the past. No longer will we hear of some operator who has been too eager to get out the coal and who has lost sight of everything else in his mad dash for production, digging himself shut until his airways are mere pin- points and his air current a feeble thing, too weak to combat the high resistance of his restricted mine. A mine operating under one or more of the various systems of concentrated mining should always have plenty of air, for in concentrated mining the tendency is toward greatly reduced mine resistances due to increased sectional areas. It can readily be seen that the tendency is to large, wide areas across the panel and where this is true large volumes and low gauges are the rule, unless inordinate restriction is encountered in the permanent airways, and no operator, far sighted or progressive enough to adopt this system of mining when his conditions permit, would ever allow his main airways both intake and return, to be anything but model courses. As a matter of .fact, we are likely to encounter the opposite of what is usually the case in most mines to day. We are apt to find the air at the working faces sluggish due to the large areas of passage rather than to high resistance. This is combated in. various ways which will be discussed further along in this article. Those companies, of which we have knowledge in this country who, to- day are using any of the new systems of mining, seem to proceed alike in the general method of developing their acreage. Let us assume, for this discussion, the Utah Colorado Coal Corporation is going to open a mine under the new system and their conditions are such as to permit their adopting the simple block system, each face served by a separate machine, each entry having its conveyor to the cars. After the permanent haulage and airways are driven "narrow work" starts to shape the blocks. We are not interested in the length of these "conveyor headings" since we do not need to drive breakthroughs nor build stoppings for ventilation until we have reached their end when we connect them together. We have two methods of sending air to the face of these dead ends. We can laboriously and expeilsively install brattice cloth, as we go, or we can use a small auxiliary blower with canvas tubing to the face. Indeed I may say that one of the great difficulties encountered under the new systems is in the ventilation of these narrow faces. After they have been connected and an air circuit or current established, ventilation becomes plain sailing until the block is worked out. The auxiliary blower when used with flexible canvas tubing, has been found to be the ideal answer to the question of how to ventilate the headings which are anywhere from 100 to 1,000 feet long. These small blowers when properly used, can go a very long way to assist in further reducing the cost of production already assured by the new method of mining. Right angle bends are made by the tubing manufacturers to enable the fan to sit in the fresh air current, yet out of the way of operations and any recirculation is positively avoided by blowing the air around the corner to the face.

Jan 1, 1926

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 Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

The meeting was called to order in the Albany hotel, with the President, John B. Marks, in the chair. At the request of the Secretary, the chairman brought before the Institute the question of a reorganization of the finances and system of conducting the Institute, explaining that, although the Institute is in good financial shape and the meetings are of great interest and are attended by a large and serious minded membership, the Institute is getting so large and of such value to the operators that it should be taken over by the operators, conducted by some man elected by and from the operators, and its financing put on a definite basis. At present, it was explained, the Secretary, not a coal operator nor interested in operating, arranges and conducts all meetings and finances the Institute from three sources: the very low dues, the advertisements published in the Proceedings, and by direct solicitation of contributions among the supply and machinery houses. Mr. James Dalrymple spoke vigorously on the need of having the Institute entirely free from any taint of commercialism. Upon motion by W. D. Brennan, seconded, a committee of four, one to represent each State, was voted. Appointment of this Committee was deferred temporarily. The reading of the minutes of the previous meeting was then called for, but upon statement of the Secretary, that the minutes were published in Volume 2 of the 1925 Proceedings, they were dispensed with. The Secretary-Treasurer's report was made informally inasmuch as the last report had not yet been audited. In brief, the Secretary reported on a cost of approximately $1,600.00 a year to publish and send out the Proceedings, an expense of approximately $1,800.00 to care for the Denver meeting, and an expense of approximately $1,200.00 to care for the summer meeting. The Secretary's salary of $25.00 a month has not been collected, but a certain portion of this has been used for stenographic expense. The Secretary asked for expression from the floor regarding the advisability of continuing the publication on the present elaborate plan. Mr. Gibson, Mr. Marks, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Dick and others spoke positively on the value of the present form of the Proceedings, and urged that no changes be attempted in this. Upon motion of Holbrook Mahn, it was moved, seconded and carried that E. H. Weitzel and W. F. Murray be made life members of the Institute in recognition of their services in the organization of the Institute, placing them with Floyd W. Parsons as the original organizers of the Institute. Mr. Murray spoke briefly in acknowledgment of the courtesy. Mr. Weitzel's words are included in the discussion A letter was read from George B. Pryde relative to the present emblem of the Institute. Upon motion by Mr. C. W. Sinclair, seconded by Mr. Dalrymple, it was moved that the consideration of a new emblem be

Jan 1, 1926

By John Pfisterer

Leadership Priorities in a New Business Environment ?Komatsu Equipment Company ?Health and Safety of Our Workforce ?The Green Economy & Market Challenges ?Equipment Trends ?Our Business Approach

Jan 1, 2009

[ ]

Jan 1, 1990

[ ]

Jan 1, 1991

PRESIDENT MOSES: I think this will conclude our program for this afternoon, unless you have some- thing else. Mr. Holman, will you tell us what you are doing in the way of your local chapter, around Dawson? W. C. HOLMAN: (Chief Engineer, Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Dawson, New Mexico.) We have organized a local chapter of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and we invite all foremen, fire bosses, shot firers or anybody interested, either on the surface or in the mine. I think at the last meeting we had sixty to seventy men present. We hold meetings once a month; usually on a certain set Tuesday or second Friday of the month, or so on. We have a President, a Vice-President and a Secretary-Treasurer. There are no dues connected with it. We aim to take up the' papers that are presented at the various meetings of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and also any other subject that would be of interest, connected with our own mining operation. We usually ask two or three men to pre- sent papers, rather than one man. We find it difficult in getting one man to work up any subject, but two or three men work up very interesting papers. While we have just recently organized, we aim to have luncheons in connection with it, and possibly once a year a banquet or .some similar activity that we think would interest the men. We feel it is going to be a great help in carrying on the work of the present organization in presenting the activities around the mines. PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Holman. Has any one any- thing to bring up at this time? MR. LITTLEJOHN: I would like to ask Mr. Holman if the Institute or the Chapter there is confined to Dawson alone, or open to other camps in New Mexico? MR. HOLMAN: At the present, Mr. Littlejohn, it is just confined to our own camp, although we intend to invite the members and the officials of the other camps later on, perhaps. Especially, if we gave a banquet, no doubt we would invite the others. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Is there any other Chapter in New Mexico besides yours in Dawson, Mr. Holman? MR. HOLMAN: None that I know of, right now.

Jan 1, 1926