Search Documents

By Glen A. Zumwalt

Coal's Dynamic Legacy The first session presented by Mr. Zumwalt emphasized Western coal development, the heritage of the industry and its growth in the West. The session began with a brief description of the geologic origin of coal followed by a short history quiz given the audience to stimulate their curiosity and involve them in the presentation. Slides and flip charts were used as visual aids and a demonstration of energy resources and uses was made by playing the famous Skyline jelly bean game. Coal Mining Today Today's coal mining practices were dealt with in the second session as Mr. Zumwalt appeared dressed in the garb of the modem day miner. He then led a discussion of coal production in the Western states, its uses and the different techniques used in extracting coal from both a surface and an underground mine. Current coal transportation and markets were also touched on. Our Exciting Future Recent coal growth in the marketplace and new uses of coal products to the year 2000 were dealt with in the final session. Mr. Zumwalt covered things that currently impede the expanded use of coal and things that can negatively or positively affect the future use of coal. In each of the three sessions, Mr: Zumwalt was ably assisted by Mrs. Janet Gwilliam, his secretary at Utah Fuel Company.

Jan 1, 1984

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

WILLIAM P BALAZ RMCMI PRESIDENT 1990-1991 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 87th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30, July 1 & 2, 1991 Keystone Resort, Colorado

Jan 1, 1990

MR. SHUBART: Mr. Miller's paper mentioned the two processes that seemed to be a success, the Smith process and the Piron process. I suppose the main difference is this, that Smith's process is to furnish domestic fuel and the by-products while the Piron process that Ford is installing is for fuel for power plants. I would like to ask Mr. Miller something about the commercial cost of the process. With the briquette you must make it cheap enough to sell. What are the commercial possibilities of Smith's briquette? MR. MILLER: It is pretty hard to say what the cost would be at this time, owing to the fact that slack has advanced double, or even more at the time I was in New York with the plant, but at that time it was costing $1.10 for the operation. You can add to that, of course, the cost of the coke. One dollar and ten cents was the entire cost of plant operation. It takes about one and one-half tons of coal to make a ton of briquettes. One dollar and ten cents takes care of all the material, cost, labor, handling, etc. Labor was much cheaper then. I would say it would cost about $2.20 now. The cost of coal is what you can buy it for on the market. I don't think, however, that the carbocoal process will ever meet with any great favor for the simple reason that it is really a prepared fancy fuel. It is going to be nice for people in offices where they want a grate or for families where they want a nice clean fuel. It leaves no stain on the fingers, no odor to it. It seems in carbonizing coal we change the carbon molecule. For instance, we are all familiar with the diamond. It is carbon, yet it requires a tremendous heat to burn a common little diamond. But you can set a piece of charcoal afire, which is also carbon, with a match. The molecular form has been changed in carbonizing coal, i. e., it is larger. Carbocoal will fire very readily, it can be started with a piece' of paper. I think the Piron process will be the process, i. e., to simply take out the tars and light oils, then fire direct-have the distillate plants right on the job. CHAIR: Can Mr. Shubart tell us something of the mechanical part of the Piron process? MR. SHUBART: The Piron process is of interest because Mr. Ford is taking it up. He has made so few mechanical mistakes it makes us feel that it is a success. Piron is a chemist of high accomplishment and reputation. The thing about the proces is its simplicity. Mr. Smith's is a very elaborate process, but Piron has gotten around all that. Piron feeds the raw coal in at about one-half inch mesh or smaller. He feeds it into a retort about 55 feet long, 16 feet wide over all. He has a hearth about 6 feet wide and the length of the retort. The base of the hearth that carries the coal is a conveyor, a flat cast iron conveyor, a very massive affair, very accurately made, so that there is no loss of coal. Between the upper and lower strands of the ' conveyor is a bath of molten lead which gives an accurate control of temperature. For best results he must have temperature of not under 800 F., not over 1,300 degrees F., about 1,100 or 1,200 F. seems to be ideal for getting greatest yield of oils and the best tars and other by-products. This lead bath has a system of flues running through it that

Jan 1, 1923

The following pages contain valuable information about the products and services offered by our advertisers

Jan 1, 1982

Jan 1, 1929

By F. C. Miller

The briquetting of fuel is an industry centuries old and has followed the hammer and tongs method of making use of any by-product fuel by the simple process of sticking the mass together with anything that will stick. If fuel briquetting, as an industry, once in the lead over coal mining, had kept pace by introducing science, there would not at this time be the mad scramble to look up the fuel briquette family tree and accept every new method as fruit without the cultivation that makes fruit worth while. Cultivation of industry is a mass of evidence showing a tremendous expenditure of money for mistakes paving the way to success. Cultivation of the mining industry is practiced by nations and low temperature distillation and fuel briquetting will in the near future receive the same consideration. Fuel briquettes were used as a winter fuel in Ireland and Scotland before the discovery of America' or the introduction of coal as a fuel to replace briquettes in Ireland. This industry was practiced by the peasants who collected peat from the bogs and cut it into brick-shaped blocks, which were set up to dry in the sun and stored under cover for use or for sale. Demand for peat briquettes led to competition that resulted in a highly refined fuel. In some localities the peat was ground and purified from the earth by washing before placing in presses to squeeze out the excess moisture and form a block of peat about four inches thick. These blocks, after standing in the sun for a few weeks, were cut into briquettes about four inches square by twelve inches long and moved under cover where they remained until thoroughly dry. In this form peat makes an excellent fuel with considerable heat, small amount of smoke while burning, and tough enough to stand hauling in carts and boats without breakage. Slack from domestic coal, non-coking and anthracite, has until recently commanded a very low price and the attention of briquette men has centered on ways and means of preparing this class of fuel for the market in the form of briquettes. Industrial plants with automatic stokers have taken kindly to cheap slack or slack that was cheap because the price has been boosted to a figure where the cost of slack plus the cost of binder and operation makes fuel briquettes somewhat expensive. However, fuel briquettes are being turned out in commercial quantities to compete with prepared lump coal and the demand is in favor of the briquette man. Science has been called to aid the briquette and it is possible to purchase a complete coal briquetting plant that will turn out between four tons per hour and thirty tons per hour of briquettes at a calculated cost per ton to cover material and every item down to insurance on the plant. A few briquettes are being ' made with a mixture of- Portland cement and pulverized coal, where this class of briquette is cheap in the making, there is the increased amount of ash due to the cement to contend with and the briquette is not one that can compete with lump coal. Most binders have a fuel value, such as coal tar, pitch, asphalt residium, flour, glue and secret binders. Most briquettes are of an egg shape, weighing between one and one-half ounces and five ounces, pressed to form with a pressure varying between 1,000 pounds and 2,500 pounds per square inch. This' pressure, together with the binder, make a lump of fuel harder than most grades of soft coal. Most of the briquettes are free from pitch odor, and any tendency to leave a trace of the binder on the fingers, easy to handle, quick to, ignite, high in heat value and capable of indefinite storage without any change. Evaporative efficiency of briquetted fuel in stationary, marine and locomotive boilers has proved that a great many low-grade coals can be fired successfully in the briquetted form, where the same fuel without briquetting failed to give boiler rating.

Jan 1, 1923

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

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT PRYDE: I am sure we have all listened with interest to the presentation of this subject. Anything that promises economy in coal mining today is welcomed by all of us. We will now have a discussion on this paper. If any of you gentlemen want to ask any questions, you may do so. I think we will develop something of interest and along the lines of economy. That is the first consideration of a coal mining man. MR. H. D. RANDALL: It is an interesting fact that in manufacturing we find the greatest economy results from giving a man the simplest possible act to perform, while there is nothing too complicated for a machine. If we want to put up a set screw we find it cheaper to let one man set it up and the other screw it in. The maximum economy is what we are after. Similarly, one of the points of greatest interest which Mr. Ickis has emphasized, is that this automatic equipment not merely dispenses with a manual operator, but also performs certain functions which the operator cannot do. It provides an inherent protection to the apparatus and service not possible under manual operation. We very rarely have cases of failure with these automatic equipments, .and consequently have the advantage not only of having eliminated the operator's salary, but also his mistakes. We have had a large number of these equipments in use for several years, so that their practicality is now thoroughly proven, and the trend of practice now indicates that the automatic idea will be further extended and will become universal for such classes of service. MR. D. C. McKEEHAN (Union Pacific Coal Company) : My notion of an automatic sub-station is one that does not necessarily require new equipment beyond the control equipment; so that any of you that are interested in it can take up with the manufacturers and find out how much it would cost to change any equipment. The greatest point I think is the fact it eliminates the several nationalities from operating the set, either on day shift or night shift. They can so lock the control as to make it impossible for anyone to start or stop it, except the one who has the authority. Another point I do not believe was brought out very clearly: It would be particularly advantageous to people who buy power, and if you could have several sets in parallel, it would allow you to start the shift with one set and cut in the additional sets as the shift progresses. There are various operations that stop at the end of each shift, and-one or two or three sets can be cut out, leaving the load on one set, providing the size of the copper is sufficient to supply all the points of the mine. Another point I want to bring out: In case you have quite a number of sets distributed along transmission line, the switch trips, the operation restores the service, and you may have several hundred-or in case with us, we would have several thousand-K. V. A. of Motor Generator Sets and Rotaries, that would be starting at once, and the switch would automatically trip out again. MR. RANDALL: Another form of control was described as the so-called supervisory control. This control could be started up so the starting would not be synchronous, but could be spread out over a sequence. MR. McKEEHAN: I think that is rather a theoretical consideration for coal miners. They are standing at the controller ready to shut it off unless there is some selective method of starting various sets- MR. RANDALL: I had in mind this supervisory control, one man, a central operator who would determine which station should start and he would take time enough to have his load come on gradually. He would not permit all the installations to come on simultaneously, but come on in succession: MR. McKEEHAN: You misunderstand me. Suppose we had the main switch at Rock Springs, which supplies several camps, and there are several

Jan 1, 1924

By John M. Jennings

The Hiawatha pitmouth is located at the head of the middle fork of Miller creek, at an altitude of approximately 8,100 feet. The coal is lowered to the tipple down a gravity tram two miles long, in 16 car trips which carry about 60 tons net. The average running time of the trip is about nine minutes. At the bottom of the tram there are two tracks for the loads and two for the empties. The trip, after being cut off the rope, is dropped by gravity onto a feeder, where the cars are uncoupled and fed one at a. time across the pitcar scales and into the dump. The dump is of the full revolution type, friction driven. On passing out of the dump the cars are returned by a kickback onto the empty car haul. They are caught at the bottom by a brake which consists of a pair of steel squeeze blocks operated by heavy springs. The empties are elevated to the double tracks, where the trips are made up. The feeder, scales, dump and empty car haul are all built on the solid ground of the hillside instead of being incorporated in one structure with the screening plant. The coal is dumped into a small hopper with a capacity of about 15 tons, whence it is fed by a reciprocating feeder onto a scraper conveyor which takes the coal over to the screening plant, a distance of 120 feet. This conveyor is 48 inches wide and travels at 120 feet per minute. The screen itself is interesting. It is of the Marcus Horizontal type.

Jan 1, 1925

By D. A. Stout

The Rouse Mine, belonging to the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, earlier known as the Santa Clara Mine, is located at Rouse, Huerfano County, Colorado. Operations at this property started about the year 1899, after the old Rouse mine had been drowned out by a large flow of water coming from the strata underlying the Cameron seam. The present new Rouse mine was opened by a slope on what is familiarly known as the Walsen seam in the Walsenburg district. This slope has an average grade of 12 per cent bearing approximately, south 45 degrees west, and having at the present time a total length of 6300 feet. This seam has an average thickness at that property of five and one-half feet; however, there are sections of the mine where the thickness is from seven to eight feet. The mine has been developed. since the time it was opened on what is known as the Room and Pillar system ; water level entries have been driven right and left off the slope, and in some cases the rooms are driven directly up the pitch; and in other cases entries have been driven with rooms turned on water level courses. The first flow of water of which we have ally record was encountered in 1901 in what was called the "Second West Entry." This flow, however, was small, and did not require the installation of any large pump unit. From 1901 up until 1909 the flow increased normally as the field was developed. In January, 1909, the first large inflow occurred, coming from a break in the seventh west entry, making a total flow at that time of about 500 gallons per minute. This necessitated putting in larger pumps, and the first pump to be installed of the centrifugal type was a 600 gallon Worthington. By the year 1911 the water had increased, due to additional development, until it was found necessary to install an additional 600 gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump. In December, 1912, a break occurred in the eighth west entry, between the fourth and sixth cross entries, making 2000 gallons per minute. This flow decreased after a period of three weeks some 500 gallons, but on account of the quantity of water then being handled at the mine, and in view of the fact that we needed some reserve pumping equipment to take care of these flows, and additional 600-gallon Worthington centrifugal type pump was installed in June, 1913. An the latter part of 1914 a 250 gallon Reese roturbo was installed to take care of the water, which was being made in the lower workings of the slope. We found after the installation of the centrifugal pumps that the water decreased to a certain degree in the uppermost workings. This led us to believe that the field was being drained, more or less, and the head reduced ; however, our ideas in regard to this were again upset in December, 1915, when we encountered a flow in room 6 off the first cross entry on the ninth east entry. This flow was not as large as previous flows had been, but made 200 gallons per minute.

Jan 1, 1921

Houston T. Aars Carter Mining Co. Sundance Rt. Moorcroft, WY 82716 Charles R. Ahlbrecht Western States Surveying Inc. 7030 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 Dean Albon Monsanto Co. 800 No. Lindberg St. Louis, MO 631 67 Robert Anderson Mobil Oil Producing Inc. POB 17772 Denver, CO 8021 7 Stephen P. Antony Orbital Engineering 6789 So. Yosernite Englewood, CO 801 12 David Ariotti Boyle Mining Engineering Service Rt. 1 Box 15M Helper. UT 84526 Douglas Auck Falkirk Mining Co. 103 McKinley Ave. Underwood, ND 58378 Roger Backrnan N. D. Crockett & Assoc. 3467 Sorenson Way Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Richard Bailey Continental Conveyor & Equip. Co. 602 Park Point Drive Golden, CO 80401 Earl W. Baker Baker & Co. 4965 Jackson St. Denver, CO 80216 Allen P. Barber San Juan Coal Co. 705 Ocio Farrnington, NM 87421 Edward Barker Process Equipment Builders POB 7506 Paducah, KY 42001 Larry Barton Carter Mining Co. 101 5 Teewinot Circle Gillette, WY 82716 Hugh Bastian American Carbide Corp. POB 2650 Ronald N. Batdorf Monsanto Co. Box 701 Saratoga, WY 82331 Georgetown, KY 40321 Doris A. Bauer Mobile Oil Corp. POB 17772 Denver, CO 80217 Jan Beam Blount International Ltd. 2570 So. Dayton Way #E-308 Denver, CO 80231 Mac Beaudry Falkirk Mining Co. 1029 Cannon Ln. Washburn, ND 58527 R. C. Beerbower Gates Engineering Co. Drawer A Beckley, WV 25801

Jan 1, 1982

[Arsulich, Thomas Mechanical Engineer, S.A.E. House, Laramie, Wyoming Barrett, A. Lee joy Mfg., Co., Research Engineer, Franklin, Pa. Bartlett, Rulon Salesman, 265 S. Seventh East, Salt Lake City, Utah Beauchamp, Paul N Goodman Mfg. Co., Sales Engineer, 2509 S. Monroe, Denver, Colorado Boyle, J. J Mine Superintendent, Roundup, Montana ?Burnell, Patrick H Gebo, Wyoming]

Jan 1, 1950

At 5:30 p.m. a social hour was held for all RMCMI registrants on the lawn area south of the Gondola Lift House. This was followed by a western steak fry and dancing to the country western band, "The Cat's Night Out". MORNING SESSION Tuesday, June 29,1982 RMCMI golfers came out in force for a shot-gun start of the Championship Golf Tournament at Vail Municipal Golf Course which began its first session at 7:30 a.m. followed by a second at 1:15 p.m. The tournament was headed by William Carpender, chairman and his committee members Gary Bennewitz, Jr. and Gene Christmann. RMCMI members were treated to early morning rolls and coffee in the Conference Center preceding a showing of the RMCMI slide/tape program on enhancing the image of coal mining, by telling the story of the Institute. Following this, the meeting was called to order by President McKeever at 8:30 a.m. when he introduced Mr. Carl Terzian who presented a workshop entitled "Sure You Have an Image - But What Kind?". MR. McKEEVER: Good morning Carl. I see you're ready to address this bright and busy tail audience. One of the things that I really want to point out this morning and I knew we would have a second chance with Carl Terzian but Carl is someone that will leave a good lasting impression on you and what he will hopefully be talking about, as I remember, is that what he's saying here can be used personally, or for company, or for the Institute, or anything else on image. Carl is Chairman of the Board of Carl Terzian Associates. He is a prominent author, lecturer and consultant. He is headquartered in Los Angeles and he's nationally known: governmental affairs, man¬agerial development and executive speech training and has served nearly four hundred clients since 1969. Each year he travels nearly 300,000 miles to address conventions, conferences and sales and management meetings as a motivational speaker. Carl has been speaking professionally for more than twenty-five years. He was graduate magna cum laude 1957 from the University of Southern California where he was elected Phi Beta Kappa and student body president. He later served as State Department goodwill ambassador for President Eisenhower; public relations director for Lutheran Hospital Society of Southern California; dean and professor of political science and speech at Woodbury University and public affairs director for architect Charles Luckman. He has been honored for his civic and philanthropic and professional accomplishments by the Congress and State Department, California Assembly and Senate, City and County of Los Angeles, Her Majesty the Queen of England, and six times by the Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge. Carl, welcome to our Coal Mining Institute and it's been kind of a historical situation on Tuesday morning that we will probably have people straggling in after that wonderful steak fry that we had last night. You're very welcome to come and takeover the command. MR. TERZIAN: Thank you very much Ira. This gives me an opportunity for those who were in my luncheon audience yesterday to again thank you for giving me the opportunity of that platform and for the very kind comments that were made following the address. Those of us who had been working for some months with Ira, Charlie, Betsy and many

Jan 1, 1982

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 J. J. Wilson

To explain in detail the manufacture of seamless pipe and tubes is something I venture to say that has never been done to a point entirely satisfactory. The manufacture of seamless tubes dates back to 1885, when Mannesmann Brothers invented the roll-piercing mill. Ten years later R. C. Stiefel invented the disc-piercer, which first came into general use in this country. At the present time the Mannesmann roll and the Stiefel disc-piercers are used, the Mannesmann rolls particularly for the larger size billets. Sizes produced at first were relatively small and the product was cold drawn to provide a smooth surface. The early uses of seamless material were chiefly for mechanical purposes, such as boiler tubes and bicycle tubing, and the latter for some years taking the heaviest tonnage. Improvements in the hot process were gradually made; the early Pilger type rolls were largely superseded by the two-high rolling mill for rolling out the tube after being pierced, the reeling machine for diagonal rolling, the sizing mill for giving exact outside diameter, and finally the sinking mill for reducing larger diameter tubes to smaller diameters.

Jan 1, 1932

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

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

Saturday, June 28 A pre-convention activity kicking off the 93rd RMCMI meeting was a Saturday evening June 28 reception for all Mine Rescue participants, their convention registered spouses, professional evaluators and RMCMI Board of Directors. This was at Buddy's Run in the Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Colorado. An estimated 100 persons enjoyed the buffet: fresh vegetable erudite with ranch dressing, fresh fruit and cheese displays and silver dollar rolls filled with ham or turkey. Blue golf shirts and red caps and convention packets were distributed to each Mine Rescue team member. Evaluators received red shirts and blue caps during the reception. Meeters and greeters from the Reception Committee wore red RMCMI arm bands and were stationed at strategic hotel spots, answered attendee's questions and gave directions to the registration area. Convention packets were first distributed Saturday afternoon by Julie Cummings and Lorraine McDonald. Sunday, June 29 A 7:30 a.m. shotgun scramble kicked off the golf tourney at the Sheraton course for 145 golfers. Yes, 145! as Lois Egan, President Tom's wife, completed a five-some with Tom and their three sons. A continental breakfast preceded the tourney. Another 65 golfers began play at 1:00 p.m. making this a record number of 210 golfers! Julie Cummings and Loren Linville sold $2,620 worth of $10 mulligans to the golfers with proceeds to the scholarship program. [ ] Both golf tourneys were co-chaired by Dave Mallak and Gordon Merriam who distributed prizes at 4:30 p.m. Monday. Prizes were donated by Amax Coal Sales West, Inc.; Austin Powder Co.; BHP Minerals-Navajo Mine; Bucyrus International, Inc.; Commercial Testing & Engineering Co.; Empire Machinery Co.; Ingersoll Rand; The Jeannot Group, Komatsu Mining Systems; Long-Airdox Co.; Marston Environmental Inc.; MEGA Corp.; The P&M Coal Mining Co.; Scandura, Inc. and TerraMatrix. [ ] RMCMI registration was an all day venture headed by chair Julie Cummings and assisted by Pat Johnson. [ ] Nearly 40 persons met for a Chef Demonstration and wine tasting at the Sheraton at 11:00 a.m. Executive Chef Jacques Wilson prepared broiled achiote shrimp with cantaloupe, grilled duck stuffed blue corn pancakes with herb grained bread and fresh fruit meringues. Wilson shared his recipes with the group and appropriate wines were served with each course, all sampled by the attendees. The chef arranged an impromptu showing of the main kitchen following the demo. [ ]

Jan 1, 1997