Search Documents

By Jeff Mattern

Topics of Discussion ?Navajo Mine General Information ?Mapping, Photogrammetryand Image Fans ?Planning: Equipment, Control Points, Targets ?Digital Photography ?Software Manipulations: Image Matching, Creating a 3d Image and Triangulation, ?Mapping? Geologic Structure, Data Analysis ?Conclusions ?Other Applications

Jan 1, 2005

Outline ? Overview ? Existing Operations ? Mine Planning ? Future Trends ? Market Impacts ? Conclusions

Jan 1, 2006

The twenty-eighth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, which was held jointly with the Utah Section of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, was called to order at eleven o'clock A. M., Monday, March 11, 1929, President Otto Herres presiding. Introductory remarks were made by John M. Boutwell, Chairman of the Utah Section of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, who outlined the intent and purpose of the joint meeting, and its co-operative program. He spoke of the in- creased recognition being given to men in the engineering profession by the public, which has recently been manifested by the election of President Hoover, an engineer of outstanding ability, and the re-election of Governor Dern to the Governorship of the State of Utah. He then introduced Governor Dern, a fellow member, to make the address of welcome. Governor Dern assured the meeting a hearty welcome. He spoke of Utah as one of the important mining states of the Union, particularly in metal mining; the magnitude of Utah as a coal mining state being limited only by its market; of the enormous coal resources of Utah, and the problems of the coal mining industry.

Jan 1, 1929

Mr. Robert Von Storch opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Von Storch: As a matter of fact, I am very much surprised to see many of these faces. The way you were acting last night I did not expect to see so many but you are evidently all right, and survived. This morning's session is the ?RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT? theme, and our first speaker- (and we made a little switch) - is Jack Huebler, Associate Director, Research Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Ill. The switch is because of a projector problem. Jack Huebler was born in Michigan and received degrees in Chemical Engineering and Mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He joined the Surface Combusion Corp. immediately and was with them for 20 years, rising to the head of research. He took leading roles in the invention and development of many heat using processes involving gas chemistry combustion and metallurgy. The now famous Erie Mining Taconite Pellet Process was one of these. He pioneered in gas carburizing and in the preparation and use of prepared atmospheres. He specialized in the heat transfer aspects of many new industrial metal heating processes. He left Surface 5 years ago to join IGT.

Jan 1, 1966

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

The Sixty-First Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:00 a.m. by Past President Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Claude introduced Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc., Denver, Colorado. His introduction of President Bridwell follows: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege and pleasure to open this session of the Sixty-first Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. My particular assignment is to introduce to you (those of you at least who do not know him) our Acting President, who for now we will call "Brid."

Jan 1, 1965

MR. C. M. GODDARD: Mr. Poli invented this little safety switch box. This junction box he has does improve the appearance mentioned in the underground junction boxes used in the foreign countries, where this thing is compulsory. There was some arrangement whereby the attachment could not be made with the switch in. The switch has got to be out of place before they can put the terminals into this box, which avoids all possibilities of short-circuits, except where protected on the inside of this box. In mines that are not gaseous, this is not so essential, but he has invented a very small junction box which probably. could be built for six or eight or ten dollars; if those things are necessary, for the handling of mining machines and their apparatus, takes current off the transmission line, and he has something that would meet that requirement, and I think when it is looked into it will meet the approval of the Bureau of Mines. He had this little box yesterday, and some of the members had looked it over and think, if they will look more favorably into it, they will find something to their advantage. PRESIDENT PRYDE: I think it is a good idea to bring in safety appliances and devices at this meeting. There were two more devices brought in here this morning; one a safety powder flask, and the other a carbide can. We have talked a great deal about permissible powder. It is going to take a little time to change over, and we would have to use the black powder cans. I will leave them in the window, if you care to investigate them.

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1927

By Richard Woodward

Presentation Outline ?What types of coal analyzers are there? ?What do they measure? ?How do they work? ?How accurate are they? ?Most common applications ?Sorting ?Blending ?Prep plant optimization ?Boiler Control

Jan 1, 2006

By D. Harrington

E. H. DENNY (United States Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado) In the absence of Mr. Harrington it is my privilege to read his paper, which is in his usual, forcible and sincere style, and it is within the province of this Institute, certainly, to go into it as it concerns safety and efficiency in mining. He brings out some points in his paper that, I think, are well worth the consideration of the Institute. The figures he uses were compiled by Mr. Adams, of the Bureau, and cover a five-year period. However, examination of similar Bureau figures for a ten-year period, or any other long period on other bases brings out similar results. The figures in this paper have been based on the million hours of exposure of accidents, and the figures based on three hundred working-man-day basis, or on tonnage, brings out similar results. This paper is entitled "Accident Record in Western Mines," and it is, in a way, an amplification of Mr. Harrington's letter which was read at the Glenwood Springs Meeting.

Jan 1, 1927

The first Mine Rescue Performance Evaluation for mine rescue teams was held just prior to the 1992 RMCMI convention meeting schedule on June 27 and 28. Six teams took part in this year's evaluation; Decker Coal, Decker, Montana; BHP Minerals' White Team and BHP Minerals' Purple Team, both of Aztec, New Mexico; Kerr McGee Coal Corporation, Jacob's Ranch Mine, Gillette, Wyoming; The Coteau Properties Company, Freedom Mine, Beulah, North Dakota and The Falkirk Mining Company, Falkirk Mine, Underwood, North Dakota. This was the first mine rescue evaluation program developed to measure a unit's proficiency in their skills rather than emphasis on a ranking order of teams. The objectives for the evaluation were to promote learning and to evaluate the current level of experience of the attending rescue units. The priority goal for this evaluation was to recognize current rescue skills, knowledge and abilities of each team participating. In doing this, each team is provided with individual evaluations and a path for improvement as needed. [ ] Realistic industrial related scenarios, closely simulating the stress of actual rescue incidents, was provided by members of the Hermosa Cliffs Colorado Fire Department under the direction of Dan Noonan, Fire Chief. On Saturday, June 27, five rescue scenarios were presented for each team to complete and on Sunday three of a more difficult nature were encountered by each team. On the final day of the RMCMI convention two of the teams performed rescue demonstra¬tions. Onlookers were afforded the opportunity to view the teams in action as they simulated actual rescue operations. The value and importance of mine rescue teams such as those participating in this year's Rescue Team Performance Evaluation are very evident as in many cases they are the only rescue personnel and medical staff on the work site in case of an emergency. Most of these persons are volunteers who spend many hours studying, practicing and perfecting their expertise in the lifesaving techniques needed in the event of a mine emergency. At the same time, they are very qualified coal miners who perform their respective duties at their mine locations, Their dedication to gaining the most knowledge they can get to handle these life and death situations is evident in their participation in evaluations such as this one. [ ] If a highly educational, informative, sharing of knowledge and expertise, while at the same time providing a very enjoyable experience, deems this evaluation a success ... the Rescue Team Performance Evaluation held during the RMCMI Convention at Tamarron this year was certainly a SUCCESS!! It is hoped that you can all enjoy this same experience with us next year! Linda G. Ash The Falkirk Mining Company [ ]

Jan 1, 1992

Jan 1, 1923

By Todd A. Myers

Forward Looking Statement Disclaimer This presentation may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements about the Company's vision, strategy, operations, growth, development and any other statements containing the words, "believes, " "expects, " "anticipates, " "plans, " "estimates, " and similar expressions. There are a number of factors that could cause Westmoreland Coal Company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements including, but not limited to: general economic and business conditions; healthcare cost trends; the Company's ability to manage growth and significantly expanded operations; the ability of the Company to implement its business strategy; the Company's ability to pay the preferred stock dividends that are accumulated but unpaid; the Company's ability to retain key senior management; the Company's access to financing; the Company's ability to maintain compliance with debt covenant requirements; the Company's ability to successfully identify new business opportunities; the Company's ability to achieve anticipated cost savings and profitability targets; the Company's ability to utilize its tax net operating losses; demand for electricity; the effect of regulatory and legal proceedings; and other factors identified in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the SEC. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of developments occurring after the date such statement was first made.

Jan 1, 2008

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

MR. ENZI: hank you very much. I'm sure there?s a lot of you out there just realizing that Rock Springs and Gillette is not one city. I'm sure there's a lot of you wondering why a person from a town who has the image in the national media that the town of Gillette has is talking to you about image. I had a person this morning ask me if Gillette wasn't the end of the world. The only response I can give is "no, but you can see it from there." We have been researched a lot and, I realize, we've been very lucky because I've observed that researchers cause cancer in rats. In fact a wonder drug is one that has no effect on mice. In fact I've been thinking of posting a sign in my office that would read "due to the large number of interviews by journalists who already have their articles written, we would most respectfully request that anyone wishing to insult the city of Gillette, please limit themselves to 3,000 words or 15 insults, whichever is shorter." I don't know if any of you saw the article in Playboy about three months ago on the city of Gillette. What you probably don't realize about that article is that that was an attempt by Playboy magazine to see if they couldn't change their image to a national municipal magazine. I think it's important to know Gillette is the frontier city, a pioneer city, it's a shopping center for northeast Wyoming and most importantly, we're the energy capital of the nation. We're on the threshold of the Powder River Basin and we will be the nation's energy solution. Besides coal, we're, already the heart of the state's leading oil producing area and we have vast uranium resources. But I, want to tell you the biggest resource that we have is, the people who have come to live in Gillette. You will find Gillette a busy, young, pulsating community. We're experiencing the excitement of growth. We're welcoming a higher percentage of newcomers than any other town in the nation. Yes, growth to us is exciting. Where else can you get ten years of experience in two years? We realize you can't maintain the status quo. Growth can be painful but not as painful as the alternative, recession and depression. For a little bit of background, we are now at 16,000 people and we have another 4,000 people who live on the outside but look like they live on the inside. The Census Bureau says that we have, 11,225 people but we have that many people in a traffic jam on the Douglas Highway in one day. I?ll , tell you about a few things happening in Gillette. I think it's very important to emphasize that I didn't , do these things; it's the youth and the energy of the community that has done these things. Right now the city of Gillette has 32 major projects underway. We have water for 50,000 people and we're seeking more water. The city in 1975 was 1 .8 square miles. Last year alone we annexed I square mile. We build 10 miles of paved streets a year. For the last 8 years we've doubled our parks' budget. I

Jan 1, 1982

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

By F. T. Baker

The Primero mine, operated by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, is located 17 miles west of Trinidad, Colorado, in Las Animas County. Unusually bad roof conditions, along with heavy side pressure and other conditions causing rapid decay of timbers, all combine to create a very serious timbering problem. The height of the coal averages six feet six inches. It is a heavy coking coal and has a tendency to become easily crushed and broken down in the seam. The seam lies about 35 feet below the sandstone and the intervening formation is composed of loose shaly rock, and as the coal is extracted, the air slackens this rock to such an extent that within 24 hours, roof falls varying from five to fifteen feet in height are likely to occur. Under these conditions it is necessary to use cross bar sets in both rooms and entries, and they must be spaced no further apart than three and one-half foot centers, and be maintained within a distance of three feet of the face. Rooms are spaced on fifty footcenters, and cannot with safety be driven to exceed 14 feet in width, and 200 feet in length. The large pillar must be maintained to protect from side pressure, and the rooms must be driven up and retreated with as quickly as possible to avoid the squeeze caused by the intense side and roof pressure. Best results in extraction have been obtained by driving rooms for only a distance of 150 feet. Under these circumstances, it is readily seen that timbers of small diameters cannot be utilized in timbering any development work of a permanent nature. Entries are driven nine feet wide, and special peeled piling with an average diameter of 12 inches are most commonly used. It, is necessary to use lagging between each set of crossbars . Conditions such as these necessitated an immense expenditure for mine timber. In addition to ordinary seven and eight foot props, we used a yearly average of 65,000 feet of heavy peeled piling, averaging in diameter from 10 inches to 12 inches. Annual expenditures for timber of all classes was in excess of $60,000.00. Timber costs per ton averaged around 29 cents. In view of these exceptionally severe timber conditions at Primero, the company, in 1920, had a survey made with a view of providing some remedy to this problem. A comparison of the life of main entry timber at other bituminous mines was made, and an average life of four years was established. The actual data collected at Primero indicated an average of less than two years in the manway or "return" airways, and up to five years on the haulageways or "intake" airways. While some of this timber will stand up for a much longer period than this, a close inspection will reveal in most cases that its period of usefulness is spent. It is very essential when discussing the life of timber, especially that used on, main haulageways and aircourses, that a distinction be made between the point of service, that is, the point where it is sound, serviceable and able to carry weight, and the point of breakdown or failure, where it is no longer sound and able to carry weight. In figuring the life of timber, the point of service only should be considered as timber will frequently stand for a considerable length of time when it is entirely decayed and unserviceable. The larger part of the timber used for our permanent work was Alpine Fir, or what is locally termed Red Spruce, and the supply of this I is gradually becoming depleted and has to be obtained at a point so distant

Jan 1, 1926

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

By Paul Schmechel

This time of year, our lawn is host to goodly numbers of birds - robins, English sparrows, finches of various flavors and some whose names I don't know. We lure them with a feeder in our backyard and I'm sure Patti and I spend several minutes a day watching them through a picture window that overlooks their coming and going. And, while the picture window supplies us with a constantly changing view, it does not treat our winged friends nearly so kindly. You see, at certain times of the day, reflections on our window feed back to our birds a mirror image of the backyard. Lifting off from the bird feeder, they see before them what is behind them. And, not infrequently they fly straight into the window. They stop abruptly, of course. It has to be quite a shock to discover that what is behind you is not the same as what is in front. At this point, I might be tempted to say something about bird brains - except for the fact that we humans also are prone to deceptive images thrown up by the past. Today, I think we hear a great many voices painting past images as they look to the future. We hear that the price of oil soon will rise to its former elevated position; the price of copper will bounce back; a hungry world soon will escalate the demand for food and our agricultural industry will be back in the black. In fact, we can hear hope from many voices telling us that our major resource-rich, basic industries are poised to fly up. I can hope that the voices are right, but I keep thinking that those expressions come from people seeing false images. Most certainly, it is more comfortable to see the past, rather than acknowledge that the world economy is being restructured and that the restructuring is affecting the Rocky Mountain states profoundly and negatively. The worst mistake we could make may be to place too much credence in the images from our past. We can be lulled into a dangerous complacency. What we need is a tighter belt and the will to do some serious bootstrapping. Before proceeding, I would make two points: First, it is not my intent to be a prophet of doom. But I do think we need some healthy doses of realism, if we are to avoid the shock of flying into a false future. Second, by now you have detected that I have choosen to diversify the assignment you handed me on utility diversification. As I proceed, you soon will see that the roots of diversification for many utilities lie in the subject that we ponder now. We could begin in many places, but let's start with energy. It is pervasive in our businesses and industries. We all use it. And, despite conventional economic wisdom, we are using less of it. The price is down, but we have not reverted to our profligate ways. That is true whether you look at the industrial customer or the residential consumer. As a nation and as a people, we have learned to do more work with less energy. A few statistics illustrated the point. If we use 1973 as the base year, energy use in the United States has declined almost I percent. If we examine the year of peak energy use, 1979, the decline approaches 7 percent. Let's look at it another way. In 1973, for every dollar of gross national product, the United States consumed 27,100 Btu of energy. Last year, 1985, the comparable figure was 20,700 Btu - a decline of 24 percent. So, not only are we using less energy, but we are using it more efficiently. Even though the price of energy has declined, we are unlikely to use substand with natural gas and petroleum consumption. Use of natural gas has dropped almost 21 percent since 1973. Petroleum consumption has declined 1 I percent since 1973 and almost 19 percent since 1978, when the U.S. used a record quantity of petroleum. We also know there's been no appreciable change in amounts of oil and gas used since 1981. We weathered both a sharp recession and a healthy recovery without altering the amount of those fuels used. That the use of oil and gas dropped sharply, while the total use of energy merely slumped a bit is easy to explain. The use of coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity from 1973 through 1985 increased almost 48 percent. Some people will tell you that the large decrease in the price of oil and gas will result in increased demand that will displace coal, nuclear and hydropower. In turn, demand will force the price of oil and gas upward. I doubt it. From the poking around I've done on the subject, I suspect there may be some short-term displacements, but they will be, for the most part, cancelled out by declining use among existing customers. For instance, we all know what has happened in the automotive sector. In 1973, the average U.S. automobile made 13.1 miles to the U.S. gallon of gasoline. In 1984, the most recent available statistic, the average auto made 16.94 miles to the gallon. That's a 19 percent improvement. Because annual miles driven per automobile are essentially unchanged over the period and the number of cars on the road is not increasing, we are witnessing a drop in this segment of the petroleum market. That trend will continue. Now, let's look at energy consumption patterns still another way. Between 1973 and 1985, consumption in the residential and commercial sectors of our economy increased total energy use by 11.2

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1923