Search Documents

PRESIDENT WETZEL: The meeting will come to order. We are pleased to see a few of the more hardy survived last night's-ordeal and are present this morning. The Secretary has some correspondence which he will read. SECRETARY WHITESIDE: Gentlemen, I have a couple of telegrams and a letter which I would like to read to you at this time. First, a telegram addressed to Mr. Wetzel: "Regret greatly necessity canceling my plans to be present at meeting. Appreciate your conveying my best wishes to members for successful and profitable session.

Jan 1, 1942

[ ] 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

H. C. GLAZE: There is no question in my mind that the day of direct current distribution is practically ended so far as large coal properties are concerned. Another thing that Mr. Drennan touched on that is of the utmost importance, is that of voltage-voltage to the various pieces of equipment inside the mine. You all know how expensive it is to have motors in operation in important places where the voltage .is about half that which the motor should have. This is particularly true in the direct current system. It slows down production, causes burnouts and destruction to apparatus, and is a question that you men have got to go into. It costs a great deal of money, as Mr. Drennan pointed out, to take care of this. The wires are large and cumbersome, while; on the other hand, with an alternating current system you can use a minimum amount of wire. We have installed this class of equipment with so-called "pick-proof" cable of 2,200 volts down slopes, and I have never heard of any trouble whatsoever from this cause.

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 2006

By G. A. Knox

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The subject assigned to me would cover a great many pages if it were gone into thoroughly. Therefore. I have just touched on a few of the most important points. I think that everyone engaged in the production of commercial coal understands all about its preparation, but I will set forth my views as to how I believe it is best accomplished. In order to produce the best prepared coal, your first attention should be to the miner at the working face. The most careful system of blasting should be adopted to avoid heavy charging of holes which results in the shattering of the coal. The lump, or any other screened sizes that may be screened from coal that has been improperly shot, are subject to greater degradation in transportation and handling, as well as reducing screened sizes, which results in dissatisfied customers in the first case, and lower realization in the latter.

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1932

Jan 1, 1927

Jan 1, 1978

Jan 1, 1970

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 Andrew Franklin

The eightieth regular meeting and convention was called to order by the President, John T. Atkins, at 9:15 a.m. Monday, June 25, 1984 in the Colorado Ballroom of the Marriott's Mark Resort in Vail, Colorado. President Atkins welcomed the members and their guests to the convention and noted that the annual business meeting would be held Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. in the same room. A convention update was made by the Conven¬tion Liaison Officer, Loren V. Linville. This was followed with a program report by the Program Chairman, Doug Ingram. The chair then called on Clifford Barrett, Upper Colorado Regional Director of the Bureau of Rec¬lamation of the United States Department of the Interior. He presented the Bureau's Citizen Award to RMCMI former president Ira E. McKeever for his outstanding contributions to the joint private/ Federal effort and the open planning process for AQUATRAIN. According to Barrett, "from 1981 to early 1984, McKeever led private industry work in the AQUATRAIN project, a proposal for a 1,400 mile long pipeline system. AQUATRAIN was conceived as a possible alternative to solve the government's problem of rising salinity levels in the Colorado river, as well as the private sector's need for a more economical coal transport method. The Citizen Award cites McKeever's efforts in developing a model for future cooperative ventures between government and industry that can benefit the nation." Following this presentation, the formal program of the 80th meeting and convention began with the president, John Atkins, introducing the convention kickoff speaker, Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Mining Co., Inc., followed by the convention keynote speaker, Dr. Margaret N. Maxey of the University of Texas. These speeches are printed in this Proceedings together with those of all other convention speakers. I'm Andrew Franklin, President of Nerco Min¬ing Company, and I'm delighted to be here to kick off the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. This has always been a very special convention in my eyes and I'm sure this year's will be no exception. I am also here to share my thoughts on the western coal industry and how we're all affected - for good and bad - by public policy decisions. Although the title of my talk is "Western Coal: An Industry Under Siege," I believe a more accurate title might be "Western Coal: The Pit and The Pendulum," because of the wide swings in public policy and coal development in the past 15 years which have cut a zigzag path for growth over this period. As one of the nation's largest coal producers, Nerco is well aware of the problems facing western coal production. Nerco Mining Company is the western coal mining subsidiary of Nerco Inc. We have been "in coal" for more than 25 years through our parent company, Pacific Power & Light. To state my conclusion at the outset, I feel it's extremely important that consistency and common sense should guide our national policy for the development of valuable energy resources. In particu¬lar, we must reduce the wide swings in government policy and activities which have affected energy development. In short, we must decide what kind of game we're playing so that the "players" and the "referees" can keep their eyes on the "ball." Business today faces two main types of uncertainty market uncertainty and public policy uncertainty. As businessmen, we expect and are used to facing the familiar challenges and uncertainties of the market in which we operate. Over the past 10 years, the market has appeared to be bullish on coal. But the facts make our future less rosy. Last year, western coal producers faced over 50 million

Jan 1, 1984

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

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1990

Jan 1, 1988

[ADAMS, JOHN P. 0. Box 560-No. 6, Rock Springs, Wyo. ADDISON, HERBERT Big Horn Collieries Co., Colo. Bldg., Denver, Colo. ALEXANDER, JOHN 825 South Gaylord St., Denver, Colo. ALLAN, DAVID Gorham, Colo. ALLEY, GERALD 1340 Steele St., Denver, Colo. AMBLER. J. B c-o Ambler & Riter. Kearns Blde.. Salt Lake Citv. Utah ANDERSON, A. E. Midland Savings Bldg., Denver, Colo. ANDERSON, ARTHUR E...Colo. Utilities Corp., 730 Equitable Bldg., Denver, Colo. ANDERSON. FRANK Crosb Wyo. APPERSON, A. B Tramway Bldg., Denver, Colo. ARNOLD, G. O .Oak Creek, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1930

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Past President, R. R. Williams, Jr., Manager of Mines, The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, who introduced the President, W. K. Dennison, Jr., Superintendent, Raton Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Raton, New Mexico. His speech of welcome to the Institute follows: The President's Remarks Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you to the 56th regular meeting of the Institute. A look at the program will show that the various chairmen and their committees, headed by General Chairman A. Z. Dimitroff, have been hard at work to prepare a program which I am sure you will find to be informative as well as entertaining. I think that a special vote of thanks and appreciation is due Glenn Sorensen, who stepped in to head the Program Committee when Clint Cornelius moved from this area.

Jan 1, 1960

Marcie A. Greenberg RMCMI PRESIDENT 1995-1996 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 92nd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 1996 Durango, Colorado

Jan 1, 1995

The twenty-eighth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, which was held jointly with the Utah Section of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, was called to order at eleven o'clock A. M., Monday, March 11, 1929, President Otto Herres presiding. Introductory remarks were made by John M. Boutwell, Chairman of the Utah Section of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, who outlined the intent and purpose of the joint meeting, and its co-operative program. He spoke of the in- creased recognition being given to men in the engineering profession by the public, which has recently been manifested by the election of President Hoover, an engineer of outstanding ability, and the re-election of Governor Dern to the Governorship of the State of Utah. He then introduced Governor Dern, a fellow member, to make the address of welcome. Governor Dern assured the meeting a hearty welcome. He spoke of Utah as one of the important mining states of the Union, particularly in metal mining; the magnitude of Utah as a coal mining state being limited only by its market; of the enormous coal resources of Utah, and the problems of the coal mining industry.

Jan 1, 1929

The thirty-first regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order at 11: 10 o'clock A. M., Wednesday, June 22nd, 1932, President T. H. Butler presiding. The Honorable Louis Marcus, Mayor of Salt Lake City, delivered the address of welcome. On motion of W. H. Bachman and seconded by D. J. Parker, it was voted that, inasmuch as the Minutes are printed in the annual bulletin, the reading of them be dispensed with. The President made his annual report. The Secretary-Treasurer made his annual report of the financial condition of the Institute. R. Dawson Hall addressed the meeting. The following committees were appointed by the President: Auditing-L. P. Pearce, Chairman; Joseph, Parmley, R. R. Knill. Nominating John Emrick, Chairman; D. J. Parker, John Marks. Resolutions-D. R. Wilson, Chairman; H. Petersen, Robert Williams, Jr. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was adjourned at 11: 55 o'clock A. M.

Jan 1, 1932