Search Documents

Jan 1, 1935

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Dyer's paper. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. NORMAN: I would like to ask the gentleman what is the distance between your crosscuts for the ventilation of rooms and entries in the state of Utah?

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1974

Kenneth M. Payne RMCMI PRESIDENT 1994-1995 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 91st Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 25 thru 27, 1995 Crested Butte, Colorado

Jan 1, 1994

[Adams, E. R Rock Springs, Wyoming Adams, V. H. 422 East San Miguel Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado Allen, Earl W 257 Rio Grande Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Louis B . Box 1920, Denver 1. Colorado Allen, Thomas Argonaut Hotel, Denver, Colorado Alston, G. L Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ambler, J. B Box 591, Denver, Colorado Apperson, A. B. 394 Elm Street, Denver 7, Colorado Arnett, L. L. 325 North First West, Price, Utah Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audin, Clement, Jr Paonia, Colorado Audin, Clement, Sr Box 627, Paonia, Colorado Audin, Ralph Box 285, Somerset, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1952

Jan 1, 1941

[ ] Thomas B. Egan RMCMI PRESIDENT 1996-1997 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 93rd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 28 thru July 1, 1997 Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Jan 1, 1996

By J. M. Shafer

Jan 1, 2005

Mr. O. F. Lewis opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. lie announced that Stan Shuhart, had the following announcement. to make: Stan. Shubart: George Delamater of Fort, Lauderdale, Florida scads greetings to his friends here at the meeting. O. F. Lewis: Thank yon, Stan. This morning we will start our meeting by turning it over to a very distinguished gentleman. I'm sure all of you know him. He started his work career many, many years ago, but lie doesn't look nearly this old, and his energy belies this. From 1.910 to 1916 he was a chemist with the American Smelting & Refining Co. at. Garfield, Utah. From 16 to '17 he was a broker with J. A. Hogle Company at Salt Lake. From 1917 to 1948 he was a metallurgist, ore buyer, assistant manager and later general manager of the Utah department. ASRC at Salt Lake City; and also president of the Garfield Chemical Co. Since 1951 to the present. time he has been President and General Manager of the Independent Coal & Coke Co. and Vice President of the Western Rock Bit Co. He has held many, many honorary positions; former Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, former President of the Salt Lake Winter Sports Association, Past President. of the Community Chest there, and is presently a Director of National Coal Association, a Director of the First Security Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, and also a Director of the Hotel Utah.

Jan 1, 1965

Jan 1, 1964

By Todd A. Myers

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

Jan 1, 2008

By 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

Jan 1, 1922

[ ]

Jan 1, 1996

Jan 1, 1980

Jan 1, 1979

By David R. Hammond

How Could Natural Gas be Coal?s Best Friend ? - Natural gas is the environment friendly ?fuel of choice?; coal is the opposite - 90 % of new / replacement generating capacity in U.S. projected to be gas-fired - Natural gas-fired generation market share predicted to increase to 25-30% at expense of coal - Natural gas consumption forecast to growth from 22 TCF to 35 TCF per year by 2025 - Gas has good friends in the Environmental Industries and the current Administration

Jan 1, 2003

By Kraig R. Naasz

Jan 1, 2008

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

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1957