Search Documents

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

By Samuel Tescher

The operation of gaseous mines is a problem, due to the fact that we have not only the ordinary mine accidents to guard against, but have also the ever present menace of a mine disaster involving a large number of human lives, and the destruction of valuable property. In looking over the reports of mine disasters throughout the country in the past several years, we find that methane gas, coming in contact with an ignition agency of some kind, has been the source of at least 75 per cent of our mine explosions. Coal dust, of course, plays its part in propagating the explosive action throughout the mine workings and rendering it more violent and destructive; nevertheless, the initial ignition of a body of explosive gas-sometimes of very small volume-has been the primer for the large majority of our mine disasters. We find also, that the places of initial ignition are most frequently found at the working faces, or in close proximity thereto. This is mainly due to the following reasons: First-The working faces are, as a rule, the places where methane gas is most freely generated. Second: They are places that are most poorly ventilated. Third-They are the places where ignition agencies are most frequently found. The sources of ignition, as a rule, consist of naked lights, the shooting -of shots, defective flame safety lamps, and electrical arcs. The problem, then, in the operation of gaseous mines, is primarily to so ventilate the working faces that an explosive mixture is not likely to occur, and to endeavor to keep away from the working faces all sources of ignition. To do both of these things may seem impossible. Nevertheless, by working along both of these directions, a great many disasters can be avoided. The efficient ventilation of the working faces is paramount. By efficient ventilation, we mean the continuous passing of large volumes of air at the working faces. This can only be accomplished by adequate ventilating equipment, capable of being driven by at least two independent and distinct sources of power, together with large, clean, straight air courses which are free of short turns, constructed areas, and leaky doors and stoppings. In other words, furnish a suitable course for its travel through the mine. Many of us sharpen our pencils and rack our brains to properly estimate the proper size pump and pipe equipment that may be needed to handle a certain amount of water. We estimate the size of copper conductors to a nicety. We immediately rush to repair leaks in our water, compressed air or electric lines. But how many of us give serious thought to the travel of the air through our mines, the health and safety-giving fluid on which so much depends! In driving air courses, a certain economical cross-sectional area should be adopted and maintained as standard. When turns are necessary, they should be made with long radius curves, and the cross-sectional area should be increased on the curves. All entry stoppings should preferably be built of monolithic concrete, with suitable hitches into floor and ribs, and after the concrete has set, they should be examined and leaks due to shrinkage and settling should be eliminated. Overcasts and their approaches should have cross-sectional areas larger than the entries leading to them, to allow for the sudden change of direction, bearing in mind that air wants to travel in straight lines. In the early development of a property, ample provision should be made in the size of the main entry pillars to allow for the driving of additional

Jan 1, 1925

Article II of the RMCMI Bylaws reads: Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classes, 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. [ ]

Jan 1, 1985

Oren F. Bridwell: We will close out the Institute. The President could not be here. So the Past President of the organization has been asked to take the chair. If there is no objection I will be glad to do so. We will proceed with the meeting. It seems to me we have a quorum. Minutes of last year's meetings are published in the Proceedings. If there is no objection we will dispense with the reading of the minutes. There being none we will dispense with the minutes. The Nominating Committee made its re- port last night. (See list of officers in front of Proceeding.) I move the nominations be closed. Mr. Bridwell: You have heard the motion and second. All in favor say "Aye." (Unanimous.) Motion carried. We will have a report of the Auditing Committee. Mr. Von Storch read the financial statement.

Jan 1, 1966

By Jason Laumb

Regional Energy Production ?Energy is a globally traded commodity and is influenced by regional and national needs as well as international trends. We can greatly expand energy export from the region. ?Significant opportunities exist for increased coal-based energy production.

Jan 1, 2006

[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

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 A. W. Dickinson

Since the day when one of the most progressive of our flat-head for- bears used a pry pole to loosen large rocks to crash upon the head of his, enemy, thereafter making notes of his performance on tablets of stone, the arts of mechanicalization have developed and progressed to the benefit of mankind. In the early coal pits of England the crudest of tools were wielded in the most slavish of toil to win a very small amount of product. In our own country it is but a few years since coal was hewn by negro slaves in the mines of the southland. The past thirty years have brought the use of the mining machine, power drill and locomotive, and we now stand on the brink of the coal mining era that will change the toiler of the mines into a skilled mechanic and render far more safe the winning of the fuel necessary to the nation's need. The ingenuity of our citizens has made it imperative that coal be produced at a lesser cost. Vast supplies of fuel oil have been developed; enormous resources in water power are turning the wheels of many mills and, most commendable but distressing to the coa.1 producers, the high price of coal has resulted in efforts and accomplishment in fuel economies unheard of a short five years ago. The railroads of the United States alone in 1924 accomplished more hauling with $30,000,000 less in coal bills than in 1923. The loading of coal by machines has been under investigation and trial for some time past and in an effort to have its men informed of the practice of the eastern coal fields, The Union Pacific Coal Company sent the writer through a number of states to view as many operations as possible. Notes were taken of machines and processes seen and time was spent with engineers of the various coal companies; also with the United States Bureau of Mines Engineers, particularly Mr. Edwin H. Johnson, who devoted one year to the most careful study of the mechanical loading of coal. The writer wishes, at this time, to acknowledge the helpfulness of the information acquired through contact with Mr. Johnson.

Jan 1, 1925

David Wolach RMCI PRESIDENT 2001-2002 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 98th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 2002 Breckenridge, Colorado

Jan 1, 2001

By Fredrick D. Palmer

U.S. ENERGY: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST Assessing Goals, Needs and Resources ?Decision-makers must balance the needs of average Americans with the need for: ?A strong economy ?A clean environment ?A secure nation ?Events of recent years ?terrorist acts, multiple energy crises and a global focus on sustainable development ?magnify the need to balance these principles ?Coal ?domestic, abundant, affordable and increasingly clean ?meets these needs like no other energy source

Jan 1, 2003

President Heiner opened the final session of the Institute at 9:30 a.m. Frances Leonard read the report of the Auditing Committee. Motion made by Stan Shubart for acceptance of audit and approval. Seconded and carried. R. R. Williams of the Resolutions Committee presented the following resolutions to the, group for their approval: RESOLVED: That the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, in convention assembled, hereby ratify and confirm all official actions of the Officers, the Executive Committee and other committees of the Institute between and including July 3, 1963 and July 1, 1964.

Jan 1, 1964

[ALLISON, D. S.. ...................... ,1331 Roberta St., Salt-Lake City, Utah AMBLER, J. B.. ........ c-o Ambler & Riter, Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah ANDERSON, A. E.. ................ ,403 Midland Savings Bldg., Denver, Colo. ANDERSON, ARTHUR E.. .. .Colorado Utilities Corp., Steamboat Springs, Colo. ANDERSON, FRANK ........................................... Crosby, Wyo. ANGUS, WILLIAM.. ........... .99 South Downing St., Apt. 204, Denver, Colo. APPERSON, A. B.. ............................ .Tramway Bldg., Denver, Colo. ]

Jan 1, 1928

The Wednesday morning session was opened by President Stanley Shuhart at 9-30 a.m. He called the Chairman of the Auditing Committee. Kenneth Eaton, to report on the financial statement. Mr. Eaton read the data and asked for its approval. It was made, seconded and approved. John Turner, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, submitted the following: RESOLVED: Whereas, in the year since the last convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal mining Institute, the Institute and the cool mining industry generally have suffered the loss through death of the services of: Walter M. Bellairs F. V. Colombo, M.D. George R. Delamater J. H. East, Jr. E. W. Felegy Hugo H. Machin Archie M. Morrison George E. Mills Veloy K. Piccioni

Jan 1, 1969

CLARK MOSELEY RMCMI PRESIDENT 1998-1999 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 95th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 27 thru June 29, 1999 Crested Butte, Colorado

Jan 1, 1998

Jan 1, 1976

[ ]

Jan 1, 1996

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1965

By T. C. Harvey

Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. J. M. Jennings, chairman of the General Committee on arrangements during the convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute here, I have endeavored to prepare a brief description of the Columbia Steel Corporation's tipple at Columbia, Utah, and its operations, but [ ] from the fact that you have already listened to, and have been interested I'm sure, in the description given by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Murphy, on tipple construction and operations, I am taking the liberty, with your permission, to embody in my paper a description of our haulage and ventilation systems at Columbia, which I hope will be, in a measure, also interesting to you. As many of you know, we are mining on a Multiple Panel System, which while comparatively new in Carbon County, is being used successfully in various mining districts of the United States. Mine The Columbia mine is situated about four miles south of Sunnyside, Utah, at an elevation of 6,760 feet at the portal or main entrance of mine. [ ] From this portal, the main air intake or solid rock tunnel, about 1,600 feet long, runs into the mountain in an easterly direction to an intersection of the coal vein on a grade of 0.5 of one per cent in favor of the loads. There this main entry divides and forms two main entries. These are run in parallel with 100-foot chain pillars between them and protected with 150-foot barrier pillars on each side, and run into the coal in a southerly direction on a 0.5 of one per cent grade in favor of the loads for a dis-

Jan 1, 1925

The 81 st Regular Meeting and convention was called to order by the President, Charles W. Margolf at 9:00 a.m. Monday, July l, 1985 in the Silverton Room of Tamarron, a resort hotel near Durango, Colorado. President Margolf welcomed the members and others in attendance to the convention and noted his theme of "Make It Happen!" He introduced those present of the 1985-86 Board of Directors and Officers who were elected by the Board of Directors at their Annual Meeting June 29. They were: Arthur K. Neill, President; Bernard Bernstrom, President-Elect; Loren V. Linville, Convention Liaison Officer; Vice Presidents Douglas J. Hammer of Colorado, C. Joe Presley of Montana, Alva L. Smith of New Mexico, Fred Wertz of North Dakota, Rex Berry of Utah and Thomas J. Lien of Wyoming; and Doris G. Finnie, Executive Secretary & Treasurer. He also introduced Ira. E. McKeever who was elected to serve as chairman of the Advisory Board by that group. Margolf mentioned that one three-year term as a Director would be voted upon at the annual business meeting which would be held Tuesday, July 2 at 1:30 p.m. in the Windom Peak Room and introduced James "Doug" Ingram, the nominee of the Nominating Committee. A convention update was made by the Conven-

Jan 1, 1985