Search Documents

By C. A. Herbert

We all deplore the high accident rate of our coal mines, but when brought to task we immediately attempt to appease our conscience by calling attention to the high tonnage rate per fatality in American coal mines as compared to European mines, losing sight of the fact that the accident rate per hours of exposure has shown no improvement during the past twenty years. Measuring our accidents in terms of hours of exposure, not in terms of production, is the only correct method. Certainly it can be of only scant satisfaction to the miner to know that his chances of getting killed this year are as great, or perhaps greater, than last year, but the tonnage rate per fatality will have gone up. We cannot help asking ourselves why it is the other major industries, almost without exception, have made wonderful strides toward reducing accidents, while coal mining stands alone as the one major industry in which no improvement has been made. It certainly cannot be charged entirely to the increased use of machinery and the increased productivity per man employed, as the other industries likewise, or to an even greater extent, have increased the use of machinery and the production per man.

Jan 1, 1931

By Bill Gray

Jan 1, 2008

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 10:00.a. m.; June 2, 1952, Howard B. Crandell, President, presiding. PRESIDENT CRANDELL: Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order. I presume most: of you have heard the decision of the Supreme Court in the steel case. The decision was six to three that the President had no legal authority to seize the steel industry, and it is reported that the strike is already under way. Gentlemen, it is both a pleasure and an honor to talk to you who come to the meeting of the Coal Mining Institute, many of you, from long distances. Our program committee has suggested that the president give a 30-minute talk, but you may be at case because I assure you I won't take anywhere near that long, when we will pass to more instructive and enlightening subjects. Another reason for the short talk that I am going to make is that many men in this audience know more about coal mining, specialized subjects, than I do.

Jan 1, 1952

By Peter B. Lilly

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that generous introduction - and your generous welcome. When Doris Finnie asked me to speak here today, my decision to join you couldn't have been easier - for two reasons. First, I can't say no to an opportunity to return to Steamboat Springs. My family has wonderful memories of skiing here. And this time of year, golf in the mountains is so good you almost don't miss the skiing. The second reason this was such an easy decision is that The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute is such an important forum for the coal industry, and it's certainly important to Peabody. We have mines in five western states - Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Last year, our western mines produced more than 110 million tons of coal. That's about two-thirds of our total domestic production. So western states are obviously critical to us. A couple of weeks ago, the west became even more significant to Peabody. Of course, I'm speaking of PacifiCorp's planned acquisition of The Energy Group - including Peabody - announced the middle of this month. Admittedly, when I agreed to speak here - some months ago - I had no idea just how much change Peabody would face in this relatively brief period. Still, not knowing then about the PacifiCorp announcement, I chose change as the subject for this talk. I'll update you on our recent news. But, first I want to establish a broad context for the PacifiCorp/Energy Group announcement and other change in the electricity business, change here in the United States and all over the world. ? We'll see how change is driven by two major trends - privatization in emerging markets and deregulation in mature markets, In turn, those two trends will cause ever-increasing consolidation - in both the coal industry and the broader power industry. ? After outlining those trends, I'll discuss the change that will dramatically affect Peabody following the announcement a week ago that PacifiCorp and The Energy Group intend to join forces to create one of the world's largest international integrated energy companies - an event that adds considerable credibility to the prophesies I'll outline in my remarks today. ? Finally, I will discuss an issue that threatens our industry's future - and, indeed, the economic future of all Americans. That issue is the inappropriate response to the unproven possibility of global climate change. Let's set the stage for change. And let's begin with the first trend I mentioned - the trend to privatization in developing economies. What drives the trend to privatization? Economics. It's all about the supply and demand of capital. And the engine that drives the supply/demand ratio is growth in electricity demand - tremendous growth in demand in developing economies. The U.S. EIA projects worldwide growth in electricity demand at 63 percent between 1990 and 2010, most of it in developing countries. This strong growth means that a new 500 MW power plant will be needed every three and one-half days until the year 2010. Now, if we say that a 500 MW plant will cost about $500 million dollars, we're talking about a bill of about $1 billion dollars a week - through 2010. That voracious demand for capital drives the trend to privatization. It means countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union want to sell generating assets. And Asian countries - for example, India, Indonesia and the Philippines - want to find private investors to build power plants. Privatization already is well underway. In the future, it will grow, with countries in South America, Central America, and Africa joining the trend. Bottom line: The privatization trend means rich new opportunities for companies willing to think beyond "business as usual." Meanwhile, developed economies face a different but no less fundamental change. Western European countries, the United States and Australia face deregulation. Why does deregulation represent such a big change? Consider a few basic facts about the U.S. electricity market to see what a big change -

Jan 1, 1997

[Adams, Frank E U.S. Steel Corp., 919 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan, Andrew Thompson Creek Coal &Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Thomas Chief Coal Mine Inspector, Colorado, Argonaut Hotel, Denver 2, Colo. Anderson, Merlynn D U.S. Fuel, P.O. Box 5022, Dragerton, Utah Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Ankeny, Marling J Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1959

[ ]

Jan 1, 1989

The final session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by retiring President, A. Z. Dimitroff. The report of the Auditing Committee was given by E. C. Horne, Acting Chairman of that committee. Motion was made by Dock Schloss that the report he accepted; seconded and carried. Oren Bridwell, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, gave the following report: Resolved: That the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute in convention assembled, hereby ratify and confirm all official actions of the officers, the Executive Committee and other committees of the Institute between June 29, 1960, and the present time.

Jan 1, 1961

Oren. F. Bridwell: The President declares there is a quorum. Since the minutes of last year's meeting arc published in the Proceedings, unless there is objection, we will dispense with the reading of the minutes. There being no objection the minutes will he dispensed with. Is there a report from the Treasurer? Raymond Venous, Chairman, Auditing Committee: I'd like to submit the report for the Secretary-Treasurer for the previous year. Following is the financial report of the Treasurer from May 21, 1964 to May 24, 1965. (Report submitted) May we say, "Cussie," you keep a very, very nice set of hooks. Thank you. Oren F. Bridwell: You have heard the report of the condition of our treasury. We are solvent, at any rate. You have also heard the report of the Auditing Committee. If we might have a motion that the report of the auditing committee he accepted. Moved, seconded and carried. We'll have a report of the Resolutions Committee. Max A. Robe, Chairman, Resolutions Committee: Ladies and gentlemen, we have four resolutions, which we trust are going to he in the best interests of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the coal industry in general.

Jan 1, 1965

By N/A NA

Jan 1, 1967

By D. Harrington

Discussion was prepared by A. L. Jones and Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, read by Mr. Jones; by C. B. Officer, of the Sullivan Machinery Company, read by Mr. J. H. Emrick; by Mr. D. C. McKeehan, Chief Electrician of the Union Pacific Coal Company; and by Mr. L. C. Ilsley, of the United States Bureau of Mines, read by Mr. K. P. Marshall. Their prepared answers are inserted in the body of Mr. Harrington's paper, as answers to his questions. Introductory Remarks PRESIDENT MARKS: We have made special assignments for the discussion of this paper, and I believe these discussions are to be answered in sections, and as the different sections are read applying to this paper, we will just have a brief discussion on that particular point and proceed to the next and try and expedite this discussion as much as possible, be- cause I realize a good many of you have something to say. The first discussion is by Mr. Frank A. Rank, of the General Electric Company, Salt Lake City. MR. F. A. RANK (General Electric Company, Salt Lake City, Utah) : Mr. Chairman, while my name has been put on the program as being the one to discuss this paper, I believe Mr. Jones of our company has prepared a discussion on it, and therefore will let him talk in my place. MR. A. L. JONES: I think that it is passing the buck. However, Mr. Rank sent me a copy of the paper, and I read it over with a good deal of interest. There is one thing I want to say: Mr. Shubart, in his breezy letters, stated this paper was to be written by Mr. Harrington, assisted by a number of manufacturing and operating companies, among them the General Electric Company. We did not function. The paper was completed, and we were not consulted, and I believe that is true of the others. After reading the paper over, I dictated a few notes which I want to read, to give you the view-point that we have on the subject We do not want to minimize electrical dangers, or in any way slow down high-grade construction maintenance, but there is such a thing as overstating the case. A. L. Jones, Engineer, General Electric Co., Denver, Colo. Mr. Harrington's paper in some ways pleases me very much, but in others gives me quite a different sensation. It is so full of condemnation of most existing practices and conditions that it reminds me somewhat of the nerve-racked mother who sent an older brother to see what Willie was doing and to tell him to "stop it." His recital of electrical dangers is harrowing and if I felt it were a true picture I should feel that any of us having anything to do with the recommending or selling of electrical equipment for mines would be party to a crime. Fortunately all mines are not gaseous nor is all dust explosive or we

Jan 1, 1926

The Wednesday Morning Session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Albert Keenan of the Thompson Creek Coal and Coke Company, Denver, Colorado, in the absence of the President. He introduced Edward Prostel of the University of Wyoming Natural Resources Research Institute, Laramie, Wyoming, who spoke on "Coal Utilization Work at the University of Wyoming." (Please refer to the index for printed text of the paper.) Following Mr. Prostel's talk, R. Park Lamborn of the National Mine Service Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania asked Mr. Prostel two questions: (1) What -has been done in tar research? and (2) Has there been large scale research on brickets? Mr. Prostel stated that he could not say too much about the first question as this research was done in the petroleum department and he would prefer to have a chemist talk about it. As to the second question, the system of carbonization is a big project. There are many possibilities. At the University they are trying to do that in the same unit that produces the char. This system was introduced in Canada. The brickets are bound with sulphite liquor. Mr. Schloss asked Mr. Prostel to report on a project that they have been working on at the University, and Mr. Prostel stated that some time ago they began to experiment to see if it would be economically possible to dry coal at the mine (coal containing 30% moisture) and then ship it a distance of 130 miles to be used. Results are that it would be possible, but will require a considerable quantity. He felt it might be possible to operate such a scheme in a few years.

Jan 1, 1957

Jan 1, 2009

By William M. Wallace

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject, "Shake It for Results," may or may not suggest just what is to be shaken, or just what results are to be obtained. I can assure you that if you are thinking about anything outside the realm of pure mining application you have come to the wrong meeting, and if this be the case, you have come to hear a subject discussed that I am not prepared to undertake-at the moment, at least. At the very beginning of time, results were definitely obtained by shaking. If you will recall, Eve shook a certain tree of forbidden fruit-need I recount to you the results that were, and are still, being credited to that bit of engineering? To get closer to the subject at hand, it is the intent of this paper to touch generally on the shaking, principally the vibratory shaking, of materials on a piece, or pieces, of perforated metal or screen cloth. Through the evolution of such a motion we find that great strides have been made toward a highly efficient "operation which is an essential factor in the mining world of today. The object of the shaking motion is to more efficiently separate one size material from another, according to the openings in the screening medium over which it is passed. Sizing is an important operation in every ore dressing, coal prepara¬tion or other mineral-preparing plant for reducing the product to a form more concentrated or more convenient for utilization than that in which it was mined. In coal preparation, market requirements, convenience, custom, and efficiency in combustion necessitate grading mined coal by sizes. All ore-dressing or coal preparation plants therefore must have what is called screening, sizing, or grading apparatus.

Jan 1, 1941

The Saturday morning session of the Forty-seventh Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 9:30 o'clock a. m., June 9, 1951, in the Junior Ballroom of the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City; Utah, with Mr. A. P. Cederlof presiding. CHAIRMAN CEDERLOF: Mr. Whiteside suggests that we have the Treasurer's Report. Would you like to read this report,: Mr. Reese? MR. GOMER REESE, SR.: Gentlemen, we have here the Auditor's report. A. B. Foulger, President The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Dear Mr. Foulger: Following is the report of the Treasurer from May 31, 1950 to May 31, 1951: [ ]

Jan 1, 1951

Presiding was Robert E. Murray. The first speaker was Frank L. Natta, Administrative Manager-Trapper Mine, Utah International, Inc., Craig, Colorado. Subject - "Long Term Coal Contracts." Mr. Natta graduated in 1973 from Colorado School of Mines with a B.S. in Metalurgical Engineering and a M.S. in Mineral Economics. Since 1974, he has been employed by Utah International having spent 5 years in San Francisco as Senior Market Analyst. In this capacity he was responsible for market development efforts for Utah's U. S. coal reserves. Recently, he was transferred to Craig, Colorado, as Administrative Manager of Utah's Trapper Mine. In this position, he is responsible for purchasing, warehousing, accounting and sales contract administration. The second speaker was Brucks Mitchell, President, Human Resources Management, Inc. Richardson, Texas. Subject-"Making Unions Unnecessary in the Coal Industry." Mr. Mitchell has a B.A. degree in English-Oklahoma State University. M.B.A. degree in Organizational Behavior-Southern Methodist University. Ph.D Candidate - Organizational Behavior - North Texas State University. Mr. Mitchell formed an Association of Consultants to perform assignments in Industrial Psychology and Human Resources Management. Particular emphasis has been to establish policies and procedures to make labor unions unnecessary. He has been consultant to various industrial and municipal organizations.

Jan 1, 1979

By Michael A. Poling

Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to be with you, and to share my outlook on the future of Federal coal leasing. I'm told that you wanted the best speaker on this subject in the world. Perhaps it's a reflection of these trying financial times, but I'm glad you finally agreed to settle for the best speaker your budget would afford. I have been asked to give you some insight on the status of Federal coal leasing, and how the budget problems facing the Department will affect the coal program. So I've polished up my crystal ball, and I'll try to give you a peek at the future. Before I do that, however, let me first go back in time - to when this Administration took office in 1981. We had a coal program then, after a hiatus of ten years. But that program was untested and - for reasons well known to all of you - did not work well in practice once we began operating the program. We went back to the drawing board and redesigned the program so that it can do what it is intended to do. We've made the program more predictable. That means that when future lease sales are scheduled, those sales will be reflective and reactive to the need to lease coal. On February 26, Secretary Hodel unveiled a framework for resumption of Federal leasing program activities, ending a more than two-year suspension of regional coal sales. The new program will provide the opportunity to satisfy market demand for acquiring and developing new leases, assure the government of fair market value for its coal reserves, and provide a stable supply of coal for this country's energy needs. The new program grew out of the Department's response to recommendations of the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment, coupled with a supplemental environmental study. The Linowes Report, issued in 1984, contained 36 recommendations and three Judgments on leasing levels, tract selection, sale procedures, appraisal methods, key statutory and related factors, and organization and management of the leasing program. Major changes in the new leasing program reflect these concerns. We have developed a definition for captive tracts and devised procedures to appraise their value to the adjacent coal or mine owner. Other steps include a coal lease appraisal guide which describes our appraisal methodology and is available to the public. Improvements have also been made in the gathering of lease assignment information to help in estimating the value of potential lease tracts. To improve market analysis, a three-tiered system will be used to ensure that steps of the lease sale decision process are undertaken in the context of coal supply and demand. Regional Coal Teams will thus have the advantage of long range, regional and tract specific market studies to help them determine whether sufficient demand is expected first to warrant the initiation of activity planning, then to set regional leasing levels, and finally to actually offer specific tracts for lease sale. Sale procedures will also be improved in many ways to encourage competition, improve the chances for receiving adequate bids, and to evaluate whether bids represent fair market value. We made additional modifications to the program in response to the OTA recommendations. Regional Coal Teams have been given a larger role in recommending key decisions concerning the amounts of coal to be studied and the actual selection and scheduling of tracts for lease sale. These recommendations will be accepted unless the Secretary can cite an overriding national interest factor, or a governor's request to modify the recommendations. Smaller, more frequent sales will be held, to better judge market conditions and prevent over- or under-leasing. Public participation guidelines have been written, to document all opportunities for the public to comment at various stages in the planning process. We also decided that resource management plans prepared after the passage of FLPMA in 1976 must be completed, in order for a new round of lease sale planning to begin. The BLM will also beef up its procedures for consulting with affected Federal agencies during the planning process, to assure that the purposes and values of those agencies are considered and factored into land use decisions. To assure consistent use of an adequate data base in coal lease decision-making, Regional Coal Teams will develop standards and guidelines for data adequacy, and document the use of these standards. These procedures will also be applied to the unsuitability criteria screening process. Thus, the new leasing system announced by Secretary Hodel: is fully responsive to recommendations made by the Linowes Commission and the Office of Technology Assessment for improving environmental planning and fair market value procedures; gives the regional coal teams a major say in determining leasing levels, and on the timing,

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1960

The 68th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in Manor Vail Lodge, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President Max A. Robb, Vice President and General Manager, U.S. Fuel Company, Hiawatha, Utah. Mr. Robb welcomed the members and guests and was pleased with the large attendance. He then introduced President Joseph E. Ward, former District Man- ager, Denver Office, Coal Division, Joy Manufacturing Co. (Retired). A brief biography follows: Mr. Ward is a transplanted Westerner, having spent the greater part of his life in the Eastern and Southern areas of this country. In 1927, he graduated from what was then the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, Pa., with a B.S. degree in Mining Engineering. He dropped out of school for a period between his Junior and Senior years and worked in the coal mines in order to obtain sufficient money to complete his education. Practically all his adult life since graduation, has been spent in or around the coal mines in this country. After graduation, he worked the next 15 years of his life as an underground supervisor, first for the Hudson Coal Co., in Scranton, Pa. and later for the U.S. Steel Corporation in Birmingham, Alabama. He then went into sales, selling basically to the coal mine industry and other mining operations. The last 13 years of his business career were spent as a district manager for Joy Manufacturing CO., 10 years of which were in the Coal Division of their Denver office, covering the Rocky Mountain area. He retired in August 1970 but still retains an active interest in the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute and the Rocky Mountain Coal Industry it supports. He is a widower, his wife, Thelma having died in July 1970. He has two children and six grandchildren.

Jan 1, 1972

By J. A. Bullington

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Some of you men may know who are familiar with what we have been doing in the C. F. & I. the last three years, that we have revamped our entire method of cost accounting from the pit bosses' report through to the final report of the president. The basic ideas involved in our cost system are not ours. They were given us by one of the best management and industrial engineering concerns in the country-at least they have that reputation. All I can do now is to try to pass on to you some of the ideas we have from various sources and the methods we have used in teaching those ideas to our coal men on cost accounting. This will not be a technical paper. I tried to put it in language we could all understand, and I hope I will be talking the same language that you gentlemen talk when you think about the cost of your coal in your own mines. Accounting of all kinds is classed as overhead expense, and as overhead expense we must justify its cost by the service it gives the rest of the organization. That brings us up to the problem of making the cost department pay its own way, just the same as the power plant has to pay its own way, and we have gotten away from the old idea of cost accounting in that it is sufficient within itself. The cost sheets are only so good as they enable the operating man to reduce his costs. The cost sheets are only just so much work for the cost department, and if they do not help the operating man to control his costs, we figure that is so much work wasted. The cost department works for the operating department.

Jan 1, 1931

Jan 1, 1989