Search Documents

MR. MARGOLF: Thank you very, very much Harris. There's sure a lot there to think about in terms, of our image, particularly. I think we should keep' in mind what Harris said about our history not being monolithic. Therefore our image can only be that, which is reflecting the weakest link in our industry and I think that's a burden on all of us. Perhaps to do some policing amongst ourselves to try to improve whatever might be our weakest link and thereby elevate our entire industry. Our third speaker this afternoon is another good friend of mine of long standing and I am very pleased to be able to introduce to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Bob Golten. Bob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a degree in Economics and Harvard Law School. His professional experience encompasses private practice in Chicago where he was born and in the federal government as a public defender in Washington, D.C. and in the Department of Justice as a tax , attorney. Some of us have come to know Bob more in his present role as the senior counsel for the I National Wildlife Federation. He's also Adjoint Professor of Law and Director of the National Wildlife Federation Resource Clinic, University of Colorado. Boulder campus. In addition, Bob has served with the Rocky Mountain Center on Environment as one of its directors for a number of years. He's very active in a number of areas that are not only civic but he does reflect what I would present by way of introduction as a perspective

Jan 1, 1982

By J. M. Shafer

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1971

Jan 1, 1957

The 65th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President Joe T. Taylor, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Palo Alto, California. Manager of the Stanley Hotel, who welcomed the guests to the Stanley. After a few remarks, he introduced Bob Dean, for- mer Manager of the Stanley Hotel and again associated with the Stanley, who also made a welcoming talk as Mr. Dean has hosted the Institute at the Colorado Hotel in Glenwood Springs and in Estes Park. Mr. Taylor introduced President Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Stan was raised in the machinery end of the coal industry following the footsteps of his Dad who was one of the founders of the RMCMI in 1912. And following his Dad's years of service to the Institute, 12 of them as Secretary, Stan has been active as Chairman of the Hotel & Registration Committee for 16 years, and, prior to his election as President, was General Chair- man for two years He is a graduate of the University of Colorado with a degree in mechanical engineering. He served our country in World War II and retired as a Colonel, Army Ordnance, after 43 years in the Reserve. He is a Trustee of National Jewish Hospital and was their President for 3 years. He has been active in many Military and professional societies, and in civic projects. I give you our President, Stan Shubart, for his remarks.

Jan 1, 1969

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 43 Denver Tech Center, Englewood, Colo. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., Box 2331, Denver, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Aggen, Marshall J Marathon LeTourneau Co., Rt. 4, Box 1188, Henderson, Texas Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club Bldg., Denver, Colo. Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 So. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Alford, Eugene C Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., 2025 TenMain Center, Kansas City, Missouri Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliance Co., 5708 East 7th St., Tucson, Arizona Alston, George Mine Safety Appliances Co., 400 Penn Center Blvd., Pittsburgh, Pa. Amerman, Richard W Utah International, Inc., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mex. Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., Drawer M, Price, Utah Anderson, John S Utah International, Inc., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1973

The 72nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President Roy Coulson, President Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming, called the meeting to order. He introduced Robert W. Wilson, President of the Institute 1975-1976. Bob's biography follows: Born August 20, 1923 in Washington, D.C.; P-47 Fighter Pilot for three years with the U.S. Air Corps, flying 101 missions, Discharged October 1945; Married Barbara J. Polley August 1945 in Golden, Colorado; Moved to Colorado in 1948; Parents of two sons, Alan born in 1948 and Russell (deceased); Now residents of Conifer, Colorado and planning retirement on ranch property in Santa Rita, New Mexico; His education consists of Elementary and High School in Arlington, Va.; Two years at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 1948; Business-Salesman for K&P, Inc. since 1949, President and Owner since 1968; Representatives for T. J. Gundlach Co., Johnson-March Corp., Ramsey Engineering Co., Omni-Lift, Smoot Company, Sweco, Inc. and FMC-Syntron; Member, RMCMI since 1957, Served as Registration Chairman, Reservation Chairman, Member of the Executive Board and Vice President for Colorado; Member, Society Mining Engineers (AIME), Colorado Mining Association, New Mexico Mining Association, Industries for Jefferson County, and Denver Coal Club.

Jan 1, 1976

PRESIDENT WETZEL: Gentlemen, the fortieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute will now come to order. It is my pleasure to present Mr. William Fealey, who will introduce the first speaker. WILLIAM A. FEALEY (Bethlehem Steel Company, Salt Lake City, Utah): Mr. Wetzel and Gentlemen of-the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The Governor of the State of Utah was sup- posed to be here this morning, but he heard Bracken Lee was in town and he took a runout powder. So without any further ado, I am just going to present the Mayor of Price, Utah, who is perhaps better known to all of you than anybody else. Mayor Bracken Lee.

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1923

[ACC, Inc. Bucyrus-Erie Company CINCO (Coal Industry Consultants, Inc.) Coal Magazine Colowyo Coal Company Coors Ceramic Company Crane & Hoist Sales, Inc. Cummins Power. Inc. Cummins Southwest, Inc. Cyprus Coral Company Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company Energy Fuels Corporation FMC Corp.- MHE Division Ford. Bacon & Davis Inc. T.J. Gundlach Machine Company Hemscheidt American Corp. GH Hensley Industries Honnen Equipment Company Jennmar Corporation Soy Technologies, Inc. K&P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr McGee Coal Corp. McLanahan Corporation National Mine Service Company Peabody coal Company Pitrsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Pyramid Parts, Div. American Alloy Ramsey Technology. Inc. Roberts & Schaefer Company Santa Fe Pacific Coal Corporation Scandura. Inc. Tamarron Resort TIC (The Industrial Company) Tribol Utah Power & Light Western Energy Company]

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1948

By Edward Bottomley

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I tried to get Benedict Shubart to have some fellow-some big fellow with a big voice-to read this paper for me, but he said there was nothing doing; [ ] that I would have to read it myself. I will try and not take up too much of your time. It is a pretty big subject, Mechanical Loading, and it covers a good deal of ground. I have merely touched on the high spots, as it were. A great deal has been preached and written in the last year or so about mechanical loading, and I doubt if any other subject in the mining industry has been discussed so freely and as often in the last few years. It is not the intent of this paper to dwell on the merits or demerits of any [ ] particular type of loader, that is, to say what the writer thinks is the most efficient or most inefficient machine. There are several types of loaders on the market to-day that are proving very successful in many mining districts. Some of these, five or six years ago, seemed to be a miserable failure from every standpoint, mechanically

Jan 1, 1926

It was said that the coal operators are losing a great advantage in permitting the oil producers to take the domestic market away from them. Coal is so much less expensive and more economical than oil that even the oil producers themselves are burning coal under their stills. No longer is the housewife afraid of machinery. Not only does she operate an automobile, but in her home she is used to vacuum sweepers, washing machines, refrigerators, and multitudinous devices. She is no longer machine-shy. An electrically operated stoker, if properly introduced and guaranteed with only a fraction of the enthusiasm that the oil furnace salesman shows, would get a ready reception. Several devices now on the market are much less complicated, much less apt to get out of order, than the oil burners. In place of an increased cost for the sake of convenience, the stoker will give all this convenience at a decreased cost. So said Mr. Herres. He said, however, that it must be enclosed so that the working parts are not too much in evidence. MR. McAULIFFE: While it appears possible to adapt a continuous feed to the needs of the furnace in an apartment or a house burning thirty tons or more annually, it is not yet possible to get a furnace that would satisfy the home which burns only seven or eight tons in a season. A delegate described the Garrison stoker which is designed to care for this problem. Mr. Herres said that the Pacific Coal Company had a small stoker furnace more simple than the Harrington. Pulverized coal equipment is being adapted to use in apartment houses. The stoker designed by Lloyd Garrison, State Engineer of Utah, was described, and also one which Mr. G. W. Megeath of Omaha, Nebraska, had manufactured, which Mr. McAuliffe says, is recommended only for Rock Springs coal. It was brought out that there are over forty installations of the "Iran Fireman" in Salt Lake City. For apartment buildings, there is no question as to their satisfaction. Many of the down town office buildings are so heated.

Jan 1, 1925

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 MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Emrick. Mr. Shubart would like to supplement your paper with another article. SECRETARY SHUBART: My paper really should not supplement Mr. Emrick's paper, because I secured some data from him, I knew Mr. Emrick had had a great deal of experience in shearing and I thought he could give you some useful data. (Here Mr. Shubart read the following:) "For the past two years, there has been considerable discussion among coal mining men concerning the advantages of a shearing cut in addition to the undercut, in mine work. We have had a number of requests for information on sheared coal. We were asked questions like these: What percentage increase in lump can be obtained from sheared coal? What has been the experience of mine men who have employed the shearing cut? Is the shearing cut a means of increasing the lump content? If so, is it increased to such an extent as to warrant the installation of shearing machines? Upon investigation it was found that no one could give us any definite information on the subject as no one had weighed separately the grades of coal produced from' the shearing cut. With a view of getting this information first-hand, the Goodman Manufacturing Company built up a shearing machine to be used in experimental work only. The officials of the Troy Coal Company were eager to share in the expense of obtaining this information, so that in May of this year we shipped to their mines our first type 319 shearing machine. The Troy Coal Company operates a mine at Troy, Illinois, in the No. 6 seam and produces about 275 tons daily. The coal seam averages five and one-half feet in thickness. Previous to the arrival of the shearing machine the coal was undercut six feet deep by a' Goodman Shortwall Machine. To break down the coal required two shots in the entries and three in the rooms. The percentage of lump measured over two-inch screens, averaged 58.2 per cent. The conditions of the mine were very favorable for obtaining accurate weights on the amount of lump and slack coal run over the shaker screens. The shearing machine easily cut the entire tonnage of the mine so that all coal dumped into the railroad cars had been produced from a shearing cut, in addition to an undercut. Accurate records were kept of the railroad weights and front this data the percentages of lump and slack were computed. During the month of June the percentage of lump produced over two-inch shaker screens was 69.9 per cent. This result demonstrated that the introduction of the shearing cut had increased the percentage of lump twenty per cent. The entries were driven ten feet wide and the rooms thirty feet wide The shearing cut was made near the center of the face in all places. A hole was drilled in each rib and the coal shot down with one-half the powder required when the places had been undercut only. The coal was broken down to the back of the cut so that very little pick work was necessary to load it out. The benefits derived from the shearing cut were as follows: 1. Increased percentage of lump, thus increasing the average price of coal per ton. 2. Preservation of a tender top due to the decreased amount of explosive used. 3. Facilitated handling of coal by the miner thus increasing the tonnage per man. 4. Eliminated coal yardage in entries and crosscuts of ten feet or less in width for the reason that the shearing cut provides a loose end from which to shoot the coal. This applies to the union fields only, as the non-union mines do not pay for coal yardage. Based on a price of $2.50 for lump coal and $1.25 for slack coal, the average price per ton was increased

Jan 1, 1926

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

Please note all Proceedings of the Institute were taken verbatim by stenotypists from Hyatt & Associates of Denver and editing has been minimal. MR. MORTENSEN: On behalf of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I take great plea¬sure in saying good morning to you at Vail. With a few clouds in the sky, at least we won't get sunburned. We won't have to worry about our kids in the swimming pool, perhaps. It is delightful for me to have been able to have represented the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute for the year 1982-1983. This has been our 71st year and this is our 79th meeting. In recognizing the attendance here, that dinner we had last night, and some of our entertainment must have gotten to some of us, or it is a little early. But I'm sure as the day goes on, and with the speakers outlined, it will be very beneficial for those who do attend. We do appreciate your attendance. I'd first like to make an introduction of our head table. Doris Finnie, she is our executive secretary. As most of you are aware, Gussie Whiteside retired as secretary. This will be the first time since the Institute started that there has not been a Whiteside present at one of our conventions. I'm sure Gussie would appreciate any calls or letters that any of you would care to make to her. Doris, I might add, has been a great help to me and all of the people who have been working on the program for the Institute this past year. There's been lots of reorganization and we are very pleased with Doris's ability to take hold from Gussie without any waves. Much credit must be given to you Doris for this and we do appreciate the help you have given us and believe me she has kept us out of trouble. Next, we have Art Neill. He is our vice president of the Institute from Montana and he also works with Western Energy Company. We appreciate the help that all of these session leaders and chairmen give to us. We have other names on the head table, but they will fill in as the morning goes on, so we won't bother you with any of those at this time. To set the stage for business, first I would like to call on Doris for a motion to approve the minutes of last year. MS. FINNIE: Thank you, Vernal. Mr. President, I suggest that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the members refer to pages 9 through 80 of the Proceedings for the 78th regular meeting of RMCMI, as published MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Doris. Do we have a motion to so approve? MR. LINVILLE: I so move. MR. MORTENSEN: Loren Linville so approved. Do we have a second? MR. GARR: Second. MR. MORTENSEN: All in favor say aye. (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Those opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. I'm sure glad we didn't have to read those 80 pages. Is Doug Hammer in the audience? He was going to give us a list of new members of the Coal Institute and ask for your approval. But because of his absence, the names will be listed so that you can read them at a later date, I will entertain a motion that we approve the new members who have joined the Institute. Do I so have a motion? MR. BERNSTROM: I would make that motion. MR. GARR: I second. MR. MORTENSEN: Do we have any questions? All in favor¬ (Audience responded affirmatively.) MR. MORTENSEN: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion is carried. Next, we'd like to proceeed with our Nominating committee report from the chairman, George Nugent, and the election of next year's officers. George, would you please take the stand? MR. NUGENT: Mr. President, and members of the Institute, your Nominating committee consists of five past presidents of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. From Colorado Roy Coulson; from New Mexico, Bob Wilson; from Utah, Bob

Jan 1, 1983

Jan 1, 1986