Search Documents

By J. F. McDermott

The problem of converting our raw coal, and especially those coals that are not suited for long storage, in other words soft, into a fuel which would be at once clean; of a high B. t, u. content and low ash, is one that has occupied the minds of many able chemical engineers and hydrocarbon technologists during the past few years. Low temperature carbonization is the present outcome of this line of research, and many methods have been evolved of recent years to turn out a serviceable, useful fuel, and at the same time, save the by-products. As most of the research and data within my experience and knowledge pertains to lignite or sub-bituminous coals, I will confine my remarks to coals of that character and grade: I might say that Colorado coals, commonly called lignite, are not in reality true lignite, but are sub-bituminous, although I have in my possession an analysis of a Colorado coal which shows a moisture of 17 per cent, volatile 31.5 per cent, fixed carbon 28.8 per cent, and an ash of 22.7 per cent, and B. t. u. less than 8,000. Even this, though useless for domestic or indeed industrial purposes, could not be classified as true lignite. However, for the purposes of this paper I will refer to these coals as lignite. Two thousand pounds, or one ton, of raw lignite carries about 20 per cent moisture. This, of course, varies in some coals, but is, I believe, a fair average. For carbonization purposes this is usually dried to a 5 per cent moisture, therefore leaving but 1,700 pounds of coal to be placed in the retort. From present knowledge, and with the average process of carbonization, 70 per cent of this coal will come out carbonized, or 1,190 pounds, to which is added about 10 per cent pitch, which is fried out as the coal passes through the retort, and which is used as a binder, making a total of 1,360 pounds of coke or carbonized coal. This is usually in appearance a dark colored, rather porous coke of about the size of pea coal. It burns without smoke and have a very high B. t. u. content. According to most authorities on this subject, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and ash constitute the only elements on which carbonization value of a coal depends, and of these hydrogen is the most important. It is claimed the value of a coal for carbonization purposes may be roughly surmised from the hydrogen content. If this is promising, that is, showing an available hydrogen content of from 3 to 5 per cent, the coal should be given a careful ultimate analysis. Should the seam, as often happens in lignite coals, show varying bands of coal of different structure or appearance, samples should be taken from each band as well as a gross sample taken down the face of the seam in the usual way. This is in order to determine what part of the seam is most promising for by-product processes. A seam showing a high nitrogen content adds to the attractiveness of the coal in carbonizing as; if available nitrogen is 2 per cent or better, it should give a very high ammonia yield.

Jan 1, 1923

The meeting was called to order with President George B. Pryde in the chair, and C. M. Schloss, acting Secrcetary. The meeting immediately pro¬ceeded to the reading of the papers. Mr. L. S. Ickis read a paper by A. L. Jones, entitled, "Underground Sub-Station Control," and elaborating on the general topic of automatic sub-stations. The discussion was led in part by Mr. E. H. Weitzel, acting as Chairman, in Mr. Pryde's temporary absence. Mr. S. R. DeBoer, who specializes on landscape architecture, gave an interesting talk on the subject of "City Planning and Landscape Architecture for Western Coal Camps." Notes were taken of this talk, which will be found in the proceedings. Mr. Pryde then resumed the Chair; There was no discussion of this paper. Mr. Thomas Foster, of Reliance, Wyoming, then read his paper on "Coal Dust in Mines." After the discussion of Mr. Foster's paper, the discussion of Mr. McKeehan's paper on track bonding, read at the Salt Lake meeting, was resumed, and this discussion will be found printed separately in the proceedings. Mr. Schloss then read an amusing and friendly telegram from C. H. Stevenson, of Price, Utah, which caused considerable merriment, and the Chairman asked Messrs. Weitzel, Littlejohn and Schloss to form an appro¬priate answer, and they answered it in the same spirit. The Chairman then announced the banquet for Wednesday evening and the Theatre Party for Thursday evening. The meeting then adjourned. The meeting resumed at 10:15 A. M., Thursday, February 14, 1924. The Chairman announced a photograph of the meeting to be taken at noon, on the Post Office steps, after which the Chairman appointed a nom¬inating committee, consisting of George A. Murphy, F. W. Whiteside and

Jan 1, 1924

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of the Twenty-second Meeting 9 Spiralizing Plant Spring Canyon Coal Company-George A. Murphy 12 Discussion of Spiralizing Small Coal 16 Ventilation of Working Faces Under the Various Systems of Concentrated Mining-C. H. Trik 19 Discussion of Ventilation of Working Faces 23 Dangers from Electricity in Coal Mines-D. Harrington 35 Mechanical Loading-Edward Bottomley 56 Discussion of Mechanical Loading 63 Shot. Firing at Utah Fuel Company Mines-Frank N. Cameron 69 Supplementary Report of the Safety Committee-T. H. Butler 75 Membership List]

Jan 1, 1926

By Steve Griles

Mr. Griles did not make his speech available for reprint. Looking Down the Road: The Environmental Side of the 1990s and Beyond Environmental Social Responsibility Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, Widow Combs, Bohpal and Three Mile Island are familiar names to all of us-names which evoke memories of environmental tragedies. These memories, as well as memories of other environmental disasters, lead us to pose this question: What is the nature of the environmental social contact between industry and society? The manner in which one answers this question will. in large measure, answer the question of where one thinks environmental issues will go, or should go, in the 1990s and beyond. The history of the evolution of the environmental movement will be helpful in defining and under- standing just what society's environmental responsibility is and, perhaps, what it will be. To Define the Future Start With the Past The common law, which most of the United States adopted from the English system of jurisprudence, traditionally considered pollution control and other environmental issues to be a matter of determining the relative rights of private property owners and of individuals. Legal and equitable theories, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass and the law of riparian rights, were utilized to allocate responsibilities between parties under the common law. The discharge of pollutants into streams and into the air was by and large considered acceptable, at least up to the point that another's "reasonable" use of the same air or waterway was significantly impeded. Further, the judicial decisions interpreting the applicability of the common law to the protection of the environment generally reflected the social and economic pressures of the age. During the Industrial Revolution, the decisions and policies had a marked tendency to favor industrial development. Jobs and industrial growth are deemed as important, and in some cases more important, than the protection of people and property. Additionally, the idea of a social responsibility, beyond that owed to a competing land or water user, was nearly alien to the early common law.' One could even go so far as to say that, had there been a social environmental contract under early common law (which, of course, there was not); but if there were, it would have been to promote actions which facilitated industrial development, even at the expense of the environment. Post-World War LI industrial expansion brought with it a growing awareness of limits on the environment's ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution. Thus evolved an era of social and political adjustment, as society began to shift away from supporting big business and industrial development and toward supporting domestic government programs and limits on industry. States gradually stepped in with efforts to address environmental issues. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the West Virginia Surface Mining Act of 1939, while lax in comparison to today's standards, nevertheless marked definitive efforts toward altering the balance between industrial development and environmental protection Pollution control continued to be viewed as a state responsibility through the 1950s, until Congress began, for the first time, to allocate funds for federal research on air and water pollution and to implement

Jan 1, 1988

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

This session was devoted to Surface Mining. Presiding was Virgil W. Carmichael, Vice President- Exploration, North American Coal Corporation, Bismarck, North Dakota, and John (Jack) F. Ratchye, Manager of Marketing and Resources, Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. Mining District, Sheridan, Wyoming. Subject-The new Federal Surface Mining Regulations-a thorough briefing as to content of law and how it will affect western mining. Introductory Speaker: William Hynan, Senior Vice President, National Coal Association, Washington, D.C. (See index for printed text of Mr. Hynan's paper.) Panel Members: The first speaker was George M. L. Robinson, Senior Hydrologist, Peabody Coal Company, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Robinson has a B.S. Degree from New Mexico University, Portales; Masters in Hydrology, Kent State, Ohio.

Jan 1, 1978

By Richard L. Lawson

The coal producers of the Rocky Mountain states have led in one of America's true industry revolutions - the leaps in productivity and competitiveness that deliver coal-fired electric power to the U.S. economy at prices that are the competitive envy of the world. You are a primary reason the average price of industrial power in the U.S. - the power that creates and upholds jobs - is: ? 10 percent below the French average, where nuclear power is dominant; ? 37 percent below the average for industrialized Europe; ? 49 percent below the German average, where subsidized coal and nuclear rule; ? And 73 percent below the Japanese average where nuclear and liquified natural gas dominate. There are interests ambitious to change all of that; and they will be a subject of my remarks, some by name, rank, and affiliation. Coal-fired power plants in the Rocky Mountain states deliver some of America's lowest cost electricity; and America's coal-fired plants deliver some of the world's lowest cost electricity. Represented here in one room are producers from states that deliver more than 40 percent of America's coal and five of her top 10 producing states. You are cornerstones of America's economic strength and future growth. The theme for this meeting is "The Many Partnerships of Coal;" and, in this keynote, I'd like to offer a variation on the theme. I'd like to discuss a determined partnership that is dedicated to overturning everything you have accomplished, plus the structure of our society - very dedicated, very patient, very determined. This partnership masks itself as being in the public interest but behind the mask a political alliance of three distinct private interests can be seen: ? One is ambitious for economic reward as a right and without the trouble of effort; ? One is ambitious for economic advantage in trade without the trouble of competing; ? And one is ambitious for the power to govern people without the trouble of winning consent in elections - to change the way other people choose to live in accord with their own passionately held beliefs. The international agreement on climate is being used as an artifice to advance these interests, and the interests are making the United Nations a mechanism for achieving those objectives - for turning the screw, so to speak. The President that Americans elect this year soon will come under intense pressure from these partners to: ? First, quickly adopt policies that will raise U.S. energy prices and restrict use under the climate agreement; ? And in 1998 - if they follow their own published plans - to begin the subordination of the independence of the United States to a collective sovereignty in economic, political, legal and other matters. The Worldwatch Institute inaugurated this pressure last year with a policy monograph entitled Partnership for the Planet: An Environmental Agenda for the United Nations. This is but one indicator of the situation I ask you to consider. The pressure will increase after the election. Worldwatch is one of those intellect-oriented "public interest" groups whose work often leads to policy proposals and debate. Worldwatch gets money from the U.N. Population Fund and the MacArthur Foundation among others. And so my remarks require wading waist deep into one of the more sporting current propositions of American public policy - discussion of ambitions for and within the United Nations to achieve that which the ambitious call global governance. Since last year's media focus on the militia movement - and talk of black helicopters - any

Jan 1, 1996

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

By Charlie Monroe

Savage Company History ?C.A. Savage & Son was founded in American Fork, Utah in 1946 by Kenneth Savage and his father. ?Kenneth?s brothers, Neal and Luke joined the company soon after, and remain involved today. ?Since 1988, the company has focused on its strength, expertise in providing high-quality Operating Services & Logistics Management. ?Today, Savage provides comprehensive services in the following Industries: ?Crude Oil Refining ?Sulphur & Fertilizers ?Coal Production and Mining ?Electric Power Production ?Industrial/Chemical Services ?Lumber and Forest Products ?Railroads

Jan 1, 2005

The twenty-fifth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11 a. m. Monday, August 29, 1927, in the County Court House at Trinidad, Colorado, the Vice-President, F. L. Peart, presiding. After a few words from John F. Carmody, Editor of Goal Age, J. Q. McNatt, Division Engineer of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, read a paper on "Coal Geology." In the afternoon, Prof. C. B. Carpenter, of the Colorado School of Mines talked on the work in Fuel Engineering being developed at the Colorado School of Mines. W. C. Holman, of the Phelps Dodge Corporation, then read his paper on "Developing a Pit Car Design." L. M. Kuhns, Safety Engineer of the Gallup American Coal Company, read his paper on "Safety Methods at Gallup American No. 5 Mine." After discussion the meeting adjourned for the day.

Jan 1, 1927

Article I1 of the RMCMI Bylaws reads: Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classs, consisting of active members, life members and senior members, who shall have such rights, privileges and qualifications as these bylaws may provide. The names of all active, life and senior members, together with current mailing addresses, follow. [Lt. Jay Abbott M. L. FOSS Co. 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Lt. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Are Denver, CO 80207 ]

Jan 1, 1986

The Wednesday morning session was opened by President John Reeves at 9:30 a.m. He thanked the various committees for the excellent work they did. He called on the Auditing Committee to give its report. Mr. Jack White reported that the Auditing Committee had properly checked the financial records of Mrs. Augusta Whiteside, Secretary-Treasurer, of this Institute and reports to the membership that these financial records are indeed accurate and in good order. We so sign our names to this. This Auditing Committee wishes to take this opportunity to commend and thank Mrs. Whiteside for her dedicated effort in keeping the financial records of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute in such excellent order. (See page 5 for printed Treasurer's Report) Mr. White asked for a motion to approve the records, it was made, seconded and approved. Mr. Meade Harker, Chairman of the Finance Committee, was asked to give his report. He stated that the Colorado contributors total was $630.00 and the Utah $39.0.00, making a grand total of $970.00.

Jan 1, 1970

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 Wednesday morning session was opened by President Max Robb at 9:30 a.m. He thanked the various committees, speakers and all participants in making the 67th meeting a success. He called on David M. Lane, Chairman of the Auditing Committee, to give his report. He read the report and asked for a motion to approve it. Motion was made, seconded and approved. (See Treasurer's Report on page 5.) Walter E. Duncan, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, gave his report, which follows: RESOLVED: WHEREAS, since the last convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the Coal Mining Industry generally has suffered the loss through death of the services and fellowship of: Kenneth G. Eaton Frank Field C. M. McConnell George H. Smith Glen E. Sorensen Harry Tibbs Carl H. Zietz NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That this Institute does give recognition to the contribution of these outstanding men to the Coal Industry and to the programs and objectives of the Institute, in recognition of which a copy of this Resolution shall be included in the permanent minutes of the organization and transmitted to their respective families.

Jan 1, 1971

By Harold J. Rose

It is a real pleasure to attend another meeting of the Institute. This is partly because I am a Westerner by birth and training. As a young man I had personal experience with firing Colorado and Wyoming coals. The coal industry of the United States has done an outstanding job of producing coal. We can all be proud of the industry's record of continuously adopting technical improvements in coal mining. NEED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE COAL MARKETING However, it cannot be said that the industry has done an equally good job of marketing coal. There has been a rapid growth in U. S. population, and an even greater expansion of industrial demands for heat and power. Yet coal consumption for the past several years has been no greater than it was 40 years ago, in 1912 and 1913.

Jan 1, 1954

[Following is the Financial Report of the Treasurer from May 22, 1981 to May 21, 1982: RECEIPTS Cash on hand May 22, 1981 $21,815.81 Dues $ 6,800.00 Registrations 19,250.00 Banquet, luncheons, Buffet and Steak Fry Tickets $44,335.00 Less adjustment 831.68 43,503.32 Bank Interest and Certificate Interest 7,747.49 77,300.81 $99,116.62 DISBURSEMENTS Convention Expense - 1981 48,600.37 Convention Expense - 1982 2,146.65 Stamps & Stamped Envelopes 1,251.48 Stationery & Office Expense 1,259.22 Salary of Secretary-Treasurer 5,040.18 Social Security & Employment Tax 772.20 Proceedings $ 9,703.42 Less Advertising 2,290.00 7,413.42 Certificate Purchase 10,000.00 76,483.52 Cash on hand May 21, 1982 22,633.10 United Bank of Denver Savings Account 15,000.00 Money Market Certificates 40,000.00 Total Assets $77,633.10 AUGUSTA WHITESIDE Secretary-Treasurer Approved by Auditing Committee: Paul Hronich, Chairman Robert Anderson Allen E. Duncan Donald P. Huckeby Richard C. Mullins June 29, 1982]

Jan 1, 1982

[Page Officers of the Institute 5 Minutes of. Twentieth Meeting 9 "Cutter Bits"-J. H. Emrick 12 Discussion 16 Experiments in Roof Control-D. A. Stout 18 Discussion 28 Use of Permissible Powder in Coal Mining-H. Petersen 35 Discussion 38 Safety Measures-F. C. Miller 40 Automatic Mine Fan Signal-O. C.. Irwin 45 Discussion 46 The Operation of Gaseous Mines-Samuel Tescber 51 Discussion 55 "The Alamo Mine"-E. H. McCleary 60 Discussion 69 Mudite Discussion 71 The Mudite Machine-Ogden Iron Works Co 73 Reducing the Labor Turn-Over-Eugene McAuliffe 79 Coal vs. Oil Competition-Franklin P. Wood and Eugene Weber 81 Miscellaneous Discussion 86 New General Coal Mine Safety Orders of the State of Utah-B. W. Dyer 90 Discussion 93 Wednesday Afternoon Session 103 Comment on Utah Mining Law-Wm.Monay 104]

Jan 1, 1925

President Loren V. Linville opened the meeting at 930 a.m. He called on the Auditing Committee to give its report. Bob Wilson, Chairman, read the report and asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. The Resolutions Committee was asked to present its report. Mr. Herman Van Houten submitted the following: (I) RESOLVED, WHEREAS, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the Coal Mining Industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: Thomas L. Gambill William G. Gray W. S. Landers J. O. Lively J. Vaughn Wilcox NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE- SOLVED, that there be spread upon the minutes of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute recognition of the passing of these members, who have so greatly contributed to the advancement of the industry, both nationally and in the Rocky Mountain area, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the next of kin as evidence of the sincere regard and sympathy of the members of the Institute.

Jan 1, 1980

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

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by John Peperakis, Manager Sunnyside Mines, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Sunnyside, Utah. It consisted of a Round Table. The first speaker was Mr. G. A. Bennewitz, Market Director - Fuels - Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, Denver, Colorado. Subject - "Transportation." Mr. Gary Bennewitz has been a Market Director of the Rio Grande R.R. since February 1968. He joined the D&RGW in 1966. Mr. Bennewitz has a degree in Civil Engineering from The Cooper Union in New York City. Following graduation, he spent two years working with a consulting soil engineer. He then went to work for the New York Central R.R. as a Structural Engineer and Transportation Economist. He also had a year's stint at the Port of New York Authority before moving to Denver. His paper today deals with some of tile economic factors inherent in the development of an efficient, economic unit train system. His experience in this vein includes trains operating from the Sunnyside Mines, of Kaiser Steel, the coal delivery system to Geneva Works of U. S. Steel, and from the facility of Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Co. at Carbondale, Colo.

Jan 1, 1970