Search Documents

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

Past President Shirl McArthur opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. He called on the Auditing Committee to give its report. Stan Shubart, who checked the financia1 report of the treasurer, read the report. He asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. Shirl thanked all the committees for an excellent job in making this meeting a most successful one. Special thanks to Park Lamborn for a fine program and to Gussie Whiteside for all her efforts in behalf of the Institute. An increase in salary was voted for the secretary-treasurer. It was decided to return to Vail for the 1979 convention. The Resolutions Committee was called upon to give its report. Roy Coulson, Chairman, submitted the following: (I) RESOLVED, Whereas, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: O. F. Bridwell C. L. Book O. F. Lewis Frank Kolar O. H. Littrell L. B. Phillippi Weston L. Potter George C. Trevorrow

Jan 1, 1978

By Michael A. Berdine

Twentymile Coal Company?s first longwall face in the late 1980?s was oriented approximately 45 degrees to the major coal cleats and 45 degrees to the primary horizontal stresses. This combination of stress and coal cleating resulted in frequent violent bursts of coal along the longwall face. The bursts created particles of sufficient size and force with the potential of causing injury to employees and occasional damage to shield components. Partial web cutting was subsequently developed in an attempt to relieve the stress on the coal face and required the shearing machine to travel to the tailgate and back for a full 36 inch web. The partial web cutting pattern is focused on first cutting the lower 90% of the seam to relieve the stress as the shearer travels from the headgate to the tailgate. The web depth during the headgate to tailgate pass is typically in the range of 70% to 80% and varies with conditions to maximize production rates. The top and bottom of the seam in the remaining 20 to 30% of the web are then cut out to allow the shields and face conveyor to advance. 100% of the web is cut at each gate end for a distance of approximately 19 shields. This paper addresses some general mine geology and the procedures and benefits of partial web cutting with respect to safety, production and maintenance on a high production longwall face.

Jan 1, 2004

By J. F. McDermott

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

Jan 1, 1923

By Bob Burnham

Agenda 1 Overview of forecasting process 2 Review of Pre and Post Recession Forecasts 3 US Demand/Supply Summary 4 Coal Demand by Region 5 Coal Distribution by Census Region 6 Coal Price Outlook 7 Carbon Cases 8 Takeaways

Jan 1, 2009

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 Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988

By D. Harrington

My acquaintance with rock, dusting as a preventive of wide spread explosions in coal mines dates from the fall of 1914 and the spring, summer and fall of 19.1.5 when I had an opportunity to observe the staging (both before and after) of several of the explosions in the Experimental Mine at Pittsburgh and saw violent explosions stopped by rock dust, also saw violently explosive coal dust made insensitive by use of rock dust to ignition or to propagation or spreading of an explosion. From this work I became a convert to rock dusting though I had previously been a firm believer in watering methods and am yet a firm believer that watering, methods have a well defined place in promoting the health and safety of our coal miners. In 1916, while in the Bureau of Mines service, I made an underground study and a report to the Bureau on the first extensively rock dusted mine, in the United States, the Delagua Mine of the Victor American Fuel Company near Trinidad, Colorado, there being then some ten miles of entry in that mine which had been kept well rock-dusted for at' least four years The dust used was " adobe" or surface soil screened from sweepings of the dry surface wagon roads through a screen with one-eighth inch openings, the dust giving about 20% through 200 mesh and about, 10% of approximately 1/8-inch size. The material was collected during dry weather by contract at $1.00 per ton (sacked) and was accumulated in summer and stored for winter and spring use. The dust was scattered through haulage entries by hand or by an electrically operated blower and was held on shelves along the ribs or between and on timber caps with from 1/4-inch to 2-inch thickness of the rock dust. The cost of maintaining the 10 miles of entry well dusted was about $1,500.00 per year or $150.00 per mile per year. Total cost of 'the rock dusting over a four-year period was about $6,000.00, about 2,500 tons of dust being used and 2,000,000 tons of coal produced; the above cost included about 1,200 days labor dusting at $2.50 per day, 2,500 tons of rock dust at $1.00. per ton and miscellaneous labor, material, repairs, power cost, etc., amounting to about $500.00. The cost per ton of coal produced for keeping 10 miles of entry rock dusted being about 3/10c. In addition to the rock dusting, some sprinkling was done, chiefly in the interior of the mine, costing about 2/5c per ton; and due to spilling of coal and sifting of coal .dust through loose cars on the entry floors, the floors of haulage roads were kept sprinkled between and just outside-the rails. Total cost of sprinkling and rock dusting was about .7/10c per ton much less of course than the same work would now cost. Between January, 1916, and July, 1924, my duties in the Bureau of Mines allowed me, to follow up and make underground inspections and reports on more than 20 coal mine explosions and fires in a number of states of the union and in this work a large number of samples of road, rib, and other dusts were taken to ascertain the effect of moisture, roof and floor dirt, etc., upon the propagation or the stopping of the explosion; also a large part of my work was to obtain evidence pro and con as to influences affecting the disasters and very prominent among those influences were the occurrence or use of water, water drippers, or ponds, as well as of sand, roof or floor rock or dust on floor, ribs, etc. The Dolomite explosion near Birmingham, Alabama, in November, 1922, and the Dawson No. 1 Mine Explosion at Dawson, New Mexico, in February, 1923 (at both of which I made underground inspection and report) both starting on main intake haulage road and both in mines which had fairly elaborate watering systems, convinced me that at least as far as freezing can occur on main intake air courses which also act 2s main .haulage ways, rock dusting is likely to be much more dependable than sprinkling. In making up the report on the Dawson Explosion to the Bureau of Mines (copy of which also

Jan 1, 1925

Presiding: Herman Van Houten, Senior Marketing Counselor, Joy Mfg. Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., and John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal &Coke Co., Carbondale, Colorado. The Keynote Speaker, Senator Jennings Randolph from West Virginia, was unable to come due to pressing business in Washington. A film presentation on Surface Mining and Reclamation, "Energy Bridge," Courtesy of Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Company, Denver, Colorado, was shown and was prefaced by comments from James V. Fisher. "Advantages of Longwall Mining in Western Coal Production" was a paper presented by David W. Wisecarver, Supervisory Mining Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Wisecarver graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1949. After two years with International Harvester and two years in the U.S. Army, he joined the engineering staff on a Bureau of Mines underground mining operation in Virginia for eight years where he saw duties as mine surveyor, shift boss, and assistant maintenance superintendent.

Jan 1, 1977

At the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, G. S. Rice, Chief Mining Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, announced the definition of a gassy mine. This definition has been awaited with much interest, especially by the Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. It applies to the whole area of all mines, any part of which is on the public domain of the United States. Consequently it will be of wide application in the western part of this country. The safety committee of the R. M. C. M. I. has been hopeful that the Institute would adopt this definition without exception as the codes of rules to be recommended at all mines in the Rocky Mountain area. The statement follows: "The U. S. Bureau of Mines believes that all coal mines are potentially gassy; but for purposes of administration in respect to prevention of explosions and fires, the Bureau recommends the following classification: "Class 1 coal mine-A practically non-gassy mine in which flammable gas in excess of 0.05 per cent cannot be found by systematic search. "Class 2. coal mine-A slightly gassy mine in which (a) flammable gas has been found, ? but in quantity less than two per cent in still air in any active or unsealed-abandoned workings; or (b) flammable gas can be found, but in quantity less than four per cent, in some place from which the ventilating current has been shut off for a period of one hour; or (c) flammable gas can be found,* but in quantity less than one-fourth per cent in a split** of the ventilating current; or (d) flamamble gas is found in quantity greater than' specified rate*** of not more than 25 cu. ft. per minute. "Class 3 coal mine- A gassy mine in which flammable gas is found in quantity greater than specified for a Class 22 coal mine. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING DECISION NO. 3 "(A) Flammable gas found in coal mines is, with rare exceptions, methane. In coal-mining fields where natural gas is found in lower geologic horizons by deep wells which pass through or nearby the coal mines, there have been rare instances of la leakage from the well. Natural gas is chiefly methane; that constituent almost always forms more than 85 per cent of the whole, but it usually contains ethane, propane and traces of butane also. Therefore if the latter gases are found in mine air it is an indication of leakage. The lower limit of explosibility of methane-air mixture when there is turbulence of five per cent and of natural-gas-air mixtures with about ten per cent ethane and associated hydro-carbon gases is 4.6 per cent. The limit therefore varies with the character of the mixture. " (B) To determine the proper classification of a coal mine, it is advisable that systematic testing and sampling be done at least three times in a period of not less than 72 hours. All tests and samples of the mine air, except one, must show an inflammable-gas content less than the maximum limit of the class to which the mine is assigned. In other words, a tolerance of one test or analysis may be permitted to provide for a mistake or a very exceptional occurrence. "(C) When a new mine is being opened in a coal field where existing mines are generally gassy, it is common sense to assume that similar conditions will be found in the new mine, and its development and equipment should be based upon the expectation that it will be assigned to Class 3."

Jan 1, 1926

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

By Robert E. Hanes

Coal Perspectives We are the ?Saudi Arabia of Coal Reserves? (Billions of Short Tons) [ ] However, China & India have added approximately one half of the U.S. installed base capacity for electrical generation, in TWO YEARS ? and it took us some 50-60 years to install our coal fleet.

Jan 1, 2008

of our good friends and fellow members: James Dalrymple, Sr. R. M. Perry A. E. Oliver R. M. Harding C. L. Oliver Arthur S. White Arthur N. Fancher A. E. Lindrooth D. A. Stout Clayton Morrison Frank O'Ryan Charles Billington who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1935

By Steve Griles

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

Jan 1, 1988

By 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

Mr. Robert Von Storch opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Von Storch: As a matter of fact, I am very much surprised to see many of these faces. The way you were acting last night I did not expect to see so many but you are evidently all right, and survived. This morning's session is the ?RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT? theme, and our first speaker- (and we made a little switch) - is Jack Huebler, Associate Director, Research Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Ill. The switch is because of a projector problem. Jack Huebler was born in Michigan and received degrees in Chemical Engineering and Mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He joined the Surface Combusion Corp. immediately and was with them for 20 years, rising to the head of research. He took leading roles in the invention and development of many heat using processes involving gas chemistry combustion and metallurgy. The now famous Erie Mining Taconite Pellet Process was one of these. He pioneered in gas carburizing and in the preparation and use of prepared atmospheres. He specialized in the heat transfer aspects of many new industrial metal heating processes. He left Surface 5 years ago to join IGT.

Jan 1, 1966

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

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

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

Jan 1, 1982

Profiled below are the eight RMCMI 1999 Scholarship Award winners. Seven of the eight attended the 95th Regular Meeting and convention at Crested Butte, Colorado in late June. Each spoke during the Scholarship Awards Monday luncheon and shared their goals with attendees. In addition to receiving a $1,500 tuition credit, thanks to the Patrons of the Institute annual funding of scholarships, each received recognition at the luncheon with a brass plaque signifying this honor. The winners are guests of the Institute Sunday through Tuesday and have an incredible opportunity to meet many in the coal industry who could be potential employers. The state vice presidents host the winners and pay for their travel and hotel expenses. This is a continuing scholarship and may be renewed for tuition credit again in the senior year if they remain a full time student and if recommended by the dean of their college or university. A resident from each of the eight member RMCMI states is selected by the Scholarship committee from Board approved institutions. Criteria for these annual awards is that the recipient (1) is a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit the junior year. (2) Be both a U. S. citizen and a legal resident of the member stare. (3) Maintain good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthwhile project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his company. Through donations of $100 or more to the Patrons of the Institute, each Patron receives a plaque and a year bar for each additional year contributions are made. These may be directed to RMCMI Patrons, 3000 Youngfield Street, #324, Lakewood, CO 80215-6553. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Jennifer Jannusch University of Arizona Jennifer is the daughter of Peggy and Larry Jannusch of Phoenix. She graduated from Shadow Mountain High School in the top 15% of her class. She has been on the Dean's List and won the National Collegiate Engineering Award. Jennifer belongs to the Association of Engineering Geologists, SME, Best Buddies, and enjoys running, painting and languages. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Alan S. Maste¬rs Colorado School of ties Alan is the son of Lee and Ellen Masters of Lakewood, Colorado. He graduated from Lakewood High School and has been on the Dean's List at CSM. He resides with his wife, Karen, and children Morgan, Nicole and Scott. Spending twelve years as a mechanic and semi-truck driver, Alan decided to return to school to pursue an engineering degree. Having maintained a 4.0 G.P.A. at Arapahoe Community College, he was accepted at CSM where he continues to excel. He firmly believes that the future of our country will be enhanced by our ability to utilize our natural resources. Alan enjoys time with his family, fishing, water skiing, bowling and reading Tom Clancy or John Grisham novels.

Jan 1, 1999